Archive through 30 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 30 January 2002

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: James Maybrick: Archive through 30 January 2002

Author: david rhea Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 07:35 pm
Nobody but Brierly and Maybrick cared much for Florie .She had no real women friends and she was too naive(a sort of Emma Bovary).Bad gossip had followed both Florie and her mother.Her mother was said to have done away with two husbands as well as covered many of the Southern male aristocracy.Other than the Brierly affair there is not much fact you can go on-much like that Diary.I do not believe that Florie was covering Liverpool. If she had been the women would have had much more to say about it.
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 10:29 am
Hi Caz, I must be quick because I am not at home and I am on a borrowed machine. My argument is that the diary presents us with only two alternatives. Either the "whoremaster" and "bastard" referred to throughout the first half of the text, the one who is the motive for the Ripper murders, is the same one referred to in those terms at the race -- Brierly -- and the diary has Florie doing it with Brierly well before history tells us they could have become involved... Or the "whoremaster" and "bastard" referred to in the early part of the text is a different, unknown lover -- before Brierly -- and the diary has Florie having an affair and James Maybrick knowing all about this affair despite the fact that there is no historical evidence in the record that there ever was such a person or that Maybrick knew there was before Brierly and despite the fact that, as RJ cites Yapp as telling us, Maybrick himself apparently revealed privately to Florie that he did not know of any previous affair. Those are the only two choices the diary offers. Neither one reflects the history. Now, we might just say that the diary is right about this (either one -- Florie and Alf doing it earlier and James knowing or Florie doing it with a previously unheard of mystery guest and James knowing all about it) and history is wrong. Except of course, that there is still no evidence to suggest that history is wrong -- and the diary, of course, is what is in question here. So, in order to believe in the mystery guest lover or the too-early affair with Brierly, in order to believe the diary, you have to rewrite history. Just like you have to do with the Bond report, just like you have to do with where Maybrick watched the race, just like you have to do with the medical conclusions about Jack having had sex with his victims, just like you have to do with the unfindable Mrs. Hammersmith, just like you have to do with the Manchester murders, just like you have to do with the handwriting... Over and over again you have to rewrite history in order to believe the diary. Or, of course, there is another option. You can choose to believe the historical record and the historical evidence and not the diary. And since there is no real evidence whatsoever that the diary is authentic, and no other solid evidence outside of the diary to support any of these necessary revisions of the written and documented historical record, that still seems to me like the most rational choice at this time. That, I guess, was my point -- written here in much too hurried a fashion. Now I must rush off. All the best, --John
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 11:11 am
Hi guys Interesting arguments going on. I really was looking forward to making my post here, but, having got to the end, discover that Caz has made most of the points that I was going to use. Of course the diary isn't being inconsistent. And there is nothing wrong with the diarist referring to two men as her "whoremaster", as Caz quotes above "The bitch, the whore is not satisfied with one whore master, she now has eyes on another." Whore master is just another term for "lover", you don't need to have a different 'pet' name every time your wife does the dirty on you. Out of everything that John has posted this is what sticks most in my mind (and my gullet): "And since there is no real evidence whatsoever that the diary is authentic ..." And that goes to the heart of the argument, because John is arguing from that perspective, he has reached his conclusion already (and he isn't alone there). And because of John's viewpoint the diarist must be wrong with the case of two whoremasters. But the diarist didn't make a mistake. When Florie had been arrested and removed to prison her effects were searched and love letters were found from three people. Caz, quite rightly points out the quotes that appear before and after Christmas in the diary. Most compelling? " ...a friend has turned ...". Florie had more than one lover. The diarist referred to them all as "whoremaster", and your point is ...what? No mistakes made. Paul It was Gladys who was repeatedly ill, not Bobo. Peter P.s. Traditionally ...a football afterthought. Chris, much more respectable to be beaten by Arsenal than Middlesborough, don't you think.
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 11:37 am
Peter, This sentence -- "There is no real evidence whatsoever that the diary is authentic." does not indicate that any final conclusion has been reached. It indicates, quite accurately, that there is, as of now, a complete and total lack of real, verifiable evidence in favor of this book's authenticity or that links it in any way directly to its supposed author or even to the proper century. There is this lack. Give me one piece of verifiable material, documentary, or testimonial evidence that clearly supports this book's claim to being authentic or to having existed in the 19th century or that directly links it, historically, to the real person who is its supposed author. There isn't one. And concerning the question of the diary positing one or two whoremasters, I do wish you had read my post above yours more closely. You would see that I included the "pre-Ripper murder different and unknown lover" reading as a possibility in my analysis. But that reading, just the like "Brierly as earlier than recorded lover" reading, just like the "Maybrick really in the grandstands" reading, just like the "Bond must have been wrong" reading, just like the "medical reports about no sex with the victims must be wrong" reading, just like the "Mrs. Hammersmith being real reading but unfindable" reading, just like the "Manchester murders being real but unrecorded" reading, just like the "handwriting is completely different but it's somehow still his" reading, all require that we go against the history and the documentary record in order to believe the diary. And since there is still no real evidence that the diary is authentic (not a single piece has ever been offered by anyone that links this book to its supposed author or to the proper century), there is no real reason to do this. Bye, --John
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 11:51 am
Hi John, I wasn't concerned with believing in the mystery guest lover, or the too-early affair with Brierley, in order to believe in the diary, or thereby trying to rewrite history. You know by now what my take is on this. I am exploring what the forger knew or didn't know, or could get away with inventing, and whether he really made some of the mistakes often attributed to him. I saw a problem with certain arguments being made about the one or two whore masters in the diary, that's all. And I think it might be better, when talking about the specific details of infidelity, which by its very nature are not intended to become public knowledge, not to refer to history as being wrong, but as being missing, incomplete or unclear. For instance, how do we know that the right interpretation has been put on what Yapp heard James say to Florie? Could he not simply have meant "How could you have come to this? Being so indiscreet as to make us the laughing stock of the whole town?" This wouldn't make it clear what, if anything, he already knew about this or any previous dalliances, or what he was admitting to knowing. I'm not trying to make excuses. I do think there should be room for the exploration of alternative interpretations of the history, without distorting or denying basic facts, or inventing new ones. Shirley writes on page 60 of Blake: 'In the winter of 1887/8 the Maybricks gave a dinner party. Alfred Brierley...was among the guests.' So, unless this has been found to be incorrect (and it may have - anyone?), no one is getting their history 'wrong' if they say that Florie might have jumped into bed with Alf at any time after their first meeting and how the devil could history be expected to tell us otherwise? (I'm expecting someone to tell me Alf was abroad on business or in hospital with a broken hip from the day after the dinner party until 9th November 1888 ) It's hard enough to prove a negative in the ordinary way, let alone when it concerns secret love affairs and whether they happened or not, their exact duration, who with, and who may have known but kept quiet for whatever reason. All I'm really saying is that I believe our hoaxer may have been a bit more careful over what he wrote about Florie's infidelity than has been suggested here recently. Any rumours and innuendo he read about left him plenty of scope, and in no way does he allow his readers to say "Rubbish - we know she never had an affair before Brierley", or "Tripe - there is documented proof that her affair with Brierley could not have begun until after November 9th 1888." Love, Caz
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 12:18 pm
Hi Caz, You write: "I do think there should be room for the exploration of alternative interpretations of the history, without distorting or denying basic facts, or inventing new ones." Having Florie sleeping with Brierly before the date of the Ripper murders would be inventing a new historical fact (given the current record), no? Having Florie sleeping with someone and James knowing all about it before the date of the Ripper murders would be inventing a new historical fact (given the current record), no? Having the Ripper actually engaging in sex with each of his victims would be inventing a new historical fact (given the current record), no? Having James in the grandstands rather than in the omnibus at the Grand National race would inventing a new historical fact (given the current record), no? Having two women killed in Manchester would be inventing a new historical fact (given the current record), no? Having there be a Mrs. Hammersmith in James' neighborhood at the time of the diary would be inventing a new historical fact (given the current record), no? Having the handwriting in the diary be James Maybrick's would be inventing a new historical fact (given the current record), no? I could go on. But since there is no reviewable evidence anywhere that actually supports these "new historical facts," I think the point is clear. But, that being said, I appreciate your argument about what the forgers might or might not have known. The trouble is, the text does not allow us to decide. It seems to me just as possible, given the words on the page, that Brierly is the whoremaster throughout as it is that are two or more whoremasters as we go. But the diary does tell us this -- James Maybrick knew his wife was having an affair in the middle of 1888 and he killed prostitutes in London and Manchester as revenge (or to teach her a lesson or something --it's never really consistently clear). Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any record anywhere that this is in any way true. That is not proof that she was not having an affair or that James could not have known this, of course, but it is the state of the historical record as we have it and it is worth noting that once again the record does not correspond to the diary. Bye, --John PS: Sure, the current record could be missing all this cool stuff about Florie's affairs or murdered women in Manchester or the mysterious Mrs. Hammersmith, and sure the current record could actually be completely wrong about where James was at the race and wrong about the breasts and wrong about the evidence of intercourse and somehow wrong about James' real handwriting, sure. But since there is also no evidence that the diary is anything but a found 20th century document, there is no compelling reason to think the record is wrong. And then there's always Crashaw...
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 01:17 pm
Playing Devil's advocate. In the past commentators have condemned the 'diary' because everything it contains can benn found in any commonplace source on the crime. Yet here we have commentators comdemning the 'diary' because it contains material that cannot be found in any source on the crime, commonplace or otherwise. The fact is that if the 'diary' is a fake then the material it contains is fiction and has no bearing on the historical record. But if the 'diary' is genuine then we would be obliged to seek an explanation for the anomalies it contains - which, of course, is what Peter, like Feldy before him, is legitimately doing here; well, not exactly legitimately because the 'diary' hasn't been shown to be genuine. And that's the problem, Peter. Finding a plausible explanation for an anomaly doesn't prove anything (except that a plausible explanation is possible). Ultimately the whole argument is futile. If you want to prove the 'diary' genuine, you can only do it by plausibly demonstrating that it isn't a forgery. But what's th s.p. on Florrie having an affair with that solicitor chappie and with James's brother (Edwin, was it?) Before she began to flutter her eyelashes at Brierley? And as for the words overheard spoken by James, what he may have known (in the sense of suspected) and actually witnessed are two different things aren't they. A discreet affair was something James may have suspected, but not known and therefore not mentioned. That would have been different from the humiliation of a public display.
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 02:34 pm
Hi Paul, Among the items I've listed above, only the alleged earlier affair (before the Ripper crimes), Mrs. Hammersmith, and the Manchester murders "contain material that cannot be found in any source on the crime, commonplace or otherwise." And we have no evidence to support the truth of any of these, of course. The other items, the place where Maybrick was for the race, Jack having sex with his victims, the location of the breasts, the handwriting, etc. all do have recorded and documented historical references with which to compare them, and in each case they contradict the record and we'd have to rewrite the history somehow to accomodate the diary. (And that's what Paul Feldman is actually doing all too often in his book). Also, you say: "A discreet affair was something James may have suspected, but not known and therefore not mentioned." But if the diary is right, James didn't just suspect Florie of having an earlier affair. He knew all about it, knew when and where and who, and used it as his motive for killing prostitutes in London and Manchester. That situation makes the remark RJ cites a little less understandable. Imagine a guy who has already killed seven women (and ate parts of some of them, and taunted the police in several letters) all because of his wife's infidelities saying to her, almost half a year later, "Florie, I never thought you could come to this." It doesn't quite work, even if it is just about public humiliation. Anyway, thanks for playing the devil's lawyer. In this case, he'd need a good one. All the best, --John
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 04:26 pm
Hi John I�m afraid I was thinking of the affair with someone prior to Brierley rather than where James Maybrick was located at the racetrack (although I have not followed that argument particularly closely, so won�t comment on it). But some of the other examples are slightly different; the breasts might suggest a forger hedging his bets by not altogether unconvincingly agreeing with Dr.Bond and the newspapers at the same time. And in the case of Brierley, there were hints of Florrie having previous affairs, so maybe the forger wasn�t being so terribly stupid in providing a vague confirmation of this. And didn�t Shirley dig out from somewhere that Brierly and Florrie had in fact met earlier than hitherto believed? And Maybrick�s behaviour isn�t consistent with someone who�d murdered and eviscerated five women because of his wife�s illicit relationships, but it was just one overheard remark in a long argument and the narrative of the �diary� gives us a character who was presumably well able to keep his deeper emotions under strict control, giving them voice only in his jottings and full expression in his crimes. That, at least, is how we�d probably have to explain Maybrick�s behaviour if the �diary� was genuine. What I am interested in, though, is how, having isolated what appears to be such a serious error as ascribing Florrie�s affair to Brierley to a date nearly a year earlier than was the case, this mistake is perceived in relation to the forger.
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 06:11 pm
PS: Sure, the current record could be missing all this cool stuff about Florie's affairs or murdered women in Manchester or the mysterious Mrs. Hammersmith, and sure the current record could actually be completely wrong about where James was at the race and wrong about the breasts and wrong about the evidence of intercourse and somehow wrong about James' real handwriting, sure. Thought: Would we expect James Maybrick to have more friends than have ever been written about in any book or newspaper? Yes? Then why the problem with Mrs Hammersmith? And so to the vague reference that the diarist intended to have sex with his victims: P. 449 Shirley's book: "I will take each and everyone before I return them to their maker, damaged of course, severely damaged". Point one: This is only a prediction. Point two: After each of the murders the diarist revels in describing his thoughts, but nowhere does he say 'She was a good shg'. Point three: Once again the diarist would appear to be going deliberately against current modern opinion on the case - i.e. if we believe John, the diarist said he had sex with the victims, but according to the medical experts he didn't. Point four: (The thing I find hardest to believe) Why could the experts find no signs of 'recent connection'? They were examining known prostitutes for God's sake! Some were seen with clients in the hours before Jack killed them, so why no "connection"? So if the experts could find no sign of 'recent connection' then they were simply wrong. But then again John has us believing that the diarist claims to have had sex with his victims. He doesn't. He just made a vague threat to 'take each and everyone' ...at least the last part came true ...'before I return them to their maker, damaged of course, severely damaged'. Tell you what John, I wouldn't even bother arguing that point anymore if I were you. The Grand National? John's argument on this point is an unconfirmed notion that James was in his charabanc on the other side of the course and that this is at odds with the diarist writing " ...less than a few feet away". Actually, we all know the problems that men have with estimating distances don't we? Like that sixty yard putt that went six feet wide of the hole, but we tell our wives it was 6 inches. Or like that time I saw Michael Jackson at Wembley and told my mother that I was "that close" (holding arms apart to indicate distance) to him, when in reality I was at the far end of the stadium from the stage. Now chaps, try holding your thumb as far away from your forefinger as you can, take a long look because we're all guilty of thinking that half that length is twelve inches. So the diarist writing " ...less than a few feet away" only indicates that the diarist is guilty just of John's favourite expression, "wish fulfillment". MJK's breasts? Sorry John, we've been here before - you have your witness, I have mine. Yours has been proven wrong on a basic point, mine hasn't. Now, who's the more reliable witness? And of course the diarist does cover all his bases when he thinks of leaving them at the whores feet. The Manchester murders? Well, I could go to the Manchester library and search the old copies of the Manchester Guardian to see what I could come up with, but I suspect PHF would tell me that I'm wasting my time as he thinks the Manchester mentioned in the diary is somewhere else. I still subscribe to the theory that it's the one I live in. And unfortunately it's a sad sign of the times, but it's true, that murders of prostitutes now (and then) don't gain the column inches that you would expect. That's assuming the body is found. That's assuming it's recorded as a murder. The diarist has brought into the equation an event that can't be verified from your list of "source books". Therefore it must* be a forgery? That just ain't fair, worse still it ain't "logical". So that's it John. I have successfully repelled all your points. Worse still for you, I've done it without resorting to your favourite accusation of 'quoting the diary to prove the diary'. Just done it by a reasoned and logical approach. But keep 'em coming John, it's fun. Cheers Peter.
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 07:26 pm
Peter, One at a time. The problem with Mrs. Hammersmith comes because the research using the census and the street records and genealogy, etc. fails to turn her up anywhere near where she is supposed to be. Peter Birchwood can comment in more detail on this, but as in most things diary-related, she seems to conflict with the historical record. You write: "So if the experts could find no sign of 'recent connection' then they were simply wrong." I love this. History is "simply wrong" again. The diary, as always for Peter and co., trumps the record. Despite the fact that there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world that the diary is authentic or that it is linked in any way at all to the real James Maybrick or the 19th century even, the diary must be right and the experts on the scene at the time must simply be wrong. It's no wonder that "wish-fulfillment" has become a standard phrase when discussing the Feldmania of diary-reading as history. But then you retreat from your earlier claim about the diarist claiming to have had relations with his victims and now reassure us that this is only a prediction and he might not have. So the record might be right after all. Wonder what happened? And yet, amidst his memories, the diarist claims "the whore was only too willing to do her business." Hmmm... And then there is the slipperiest excuse-making of them all. Here's Peter on the diarist saying he was only a few feet away from the Prince at the race: "Actually, we all know the problems that men have with estimating distances don't we? Like that sixty yard putt that went six feet wide of the hole, but we tell our wives it was 6 inches." Priceless. Once again, everyone, please take note: This is Peter's excuse for the diarist having gotten Maybrick's (i.e. the writer's) position at the Grand National wrong: "Actually, we all know the problems that men have with estimating distances don't we? Like that sixty yard putt that went six feet wide of the hole, but we tell our wives it was 6 inches." Any debate about the diary's likely authenticity should probably end here. If this is the sort of argument that is necessary for the diary to be authentic, then we should all go home now, because we have entered into world of the ludicrous. Once more. How is it that the diarist gets James's position at the race wrong when its supposed to be James that was writing the diary? Remember, it's not just a little wrong. James watched the race from an omnibus while the others went to the grandstand. James was a long way away from the Prince. Not even in the same grandstand. This is documented by Ryan on pages 36 and 37 of his book and it is confirmed by several witnesses at the trial. Maybrick stayed behind on the omnibus with Miss Gertrude Janion while Florence and Alfred and their friends went to the grandstand. Everyone involved agrees about this. So why would the diarist have James in the wrong spot. Why would James have himself in the grandstand rather than back in the omnibus with Gertrude where it is known he was? Here's the obvious explanation: "Actually, we all know the problems that men have with estimating distances don't we? Like that sixty yard putt that went six feet wide of the hole, but we tell our wives it was 6 inches." OF COURSE! Why didn't I think of this myself? I hope it is now clear to everyone exactly what is necessary if you wish to argue in favor of the diary's authenticity and accuracy. James, you see, couldn't tell the difference between being in the grandstand and being back on the bus, because "we all know the problems that men have with estimating distances don't we? Like that sixty yard putt that went six feet wide of the hole, but we tell our wives it was 6 inches." I will never bring up this point again! I am convinced! The diary must be real! All right. I've stopped laughing. Now then, to more of your post Peter. There's more rewriting of history. The doctor on the scene must have been wrong about what he saw. The Manchester murders must just have gone unrecorded somehow. History must be wrong if it doesn't agree with the diary? Why, well, because the diary is right. Uh, any evidence? Nope. Oh, OK. What's wrong with this argument? It has no substance of course. You have "repelled" nothing, Peter. You've merely restated your unevidenced assertion that the diary is right and the historical records somehow must be either missing or wrong. But you have no evidence to support any of your claims. And you haven't even mentioned at least one of the historical conflicts I cite in the very paragraph that you use to begin your post. I'll let you check back and see which one it is. Meanwhile, once again, I will reprint the passage of an earlier post you did not address: Give me one piece of verifiable material, documentary, or testimonial evidence that clearly supports this book's claim to being authentic or to having existed in the 19th century or that directly links it, historically, to the real person who is its supposed author. Oh, right. There isn't one. I'm off to think more about how "we all know the problems that men have with estimating distances don't we? Like that sixty yard putt that went six feet wide of the hole, but we tell our wives it was 6 inches." And how this excuses the diary's historical inaccuracies. It's too precious for words, --John "Now chaps, try holding your thumb as far away from your forefinger as you can, take a long look because we're all guilty of thinking that half that length is twelve inches." -- Peter Wood on why James Maybrick misplaces himself in his own diary. Let it stand forever as a monument to what the case for authenticity has de-evolved into.
Author: John Hacker Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 08:14 pm
Paul, I think the main reason that the forger made the error in regards to the start of Florrie's affair with Brierley is simply that the narrative requires it. Without the affair there is no (cough) motive. It's a fairly safe bet on the forgers part because it can't be proven that the affair didn't start earlier than anyone else knew. They also hedge their bets with the generic "whore master" references. For someone who is supposedly sleeping with his wife, the "whore master" is a pretty shapeless figure in the diary. Regards, John Hacker
Author: R.J. Palmer Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 10:06 pm
John H.-- Yes, I agree with you. I think the diary is ambiguous on this point, as if the writer knows that it doesn't quite 'work', but is going ahead with the story anyway, because that is what supplies the 'motive'. Certainly if Edwin Maybrick is the whoremaster in the first part of the diary, Sir Jim wouldn't have written "I miss Edwin?" [shortly before the 'Double Event']. The real Edwin was in America in the autumn of 1888 'enjoying the fruits', as the diary itself notes, so Maybrick certainly wasn't thinking of him. But here's a question I'd pose to those that are diary-friendly. If writer of the diary had access to obscure 'inside information' about the Maybricks, why didn't he/she/they "showcase it"? We get names being dropped---Fuller, Bobo, Hopper--but these are simply the names one finds in the standard texts. We don't get the name of the mysterious lover prior to Brierly. We don't get the names of the Jewish gentlemen on the Liverpool Cotton exchange. We get Mary Kelly's name, but we don't get the name of the victims in Manchester. We get decriptions of the Ripper murders that make them readily identifiable, but the other two are described in the vaguest of terms. It certainly makes me think that the forger is merely bluffing. I imagine that this is the case with the 'whoremaster' at the beginning of the diary. Cheers, RP
Author: david rhea Monday, 28 January 2002 - 11:36 am
Florence didn' have a whole lot of time to be whoring about before she met Brierly December 1888.In 1886 her daughter was born (June 1886).1887- she nursed her son during his bout with Black Scarlet Fever.1887 she discovered that James had a mistress, and from that time on refused to sleep with him.1888 she is very concerned about Maybrick's health and consulted Dr. Potter about the medicine he was taking asking Potter to talk to him about it.Dec.1888 she first meets Brierly.Polly Nichols killed Aug 1888 before Florie meets Brierly.There is nothing to associate Florence with any affair before Brierly-but about James and his mistress and 5 children there is ample evidence.
Author: david rhea Monday, 28 January 2002 - 11:54 am
Excuse me-I am wrong-In reading Beggs quote from 'Etced in Arsenic' I reread it to discover that- Men Talk-was common about her affairs before Brierly(I guess after 1887)Christie intimates that James was jealous of his brother Edwin.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 28 January 2002 - 03:13 pm
Hi All, Hi John (O), I�m really sorry for causing you extra work. I didn't make myself clear enough - as usual. When I wrote: I do think there should be room for the exploration of alternative interpretations of the history, without distorting or denying basic facts, or inventing new ones, which caused you to write that long list for me of where the diary author invented new historical facts, I wasn't referring to him. I was referring to our exploration, without us distorting, denying or inventing new historical facts. I meant that we should at least try to establish where the diary author really has boobed, according to the documented facts, and where he might not have done, either due to luck, vague and cautious writing and hazy history, or because he might have had information not available to us (yet) that actually fills some of the gaps in the known history (I won't dare go so far as to suggest his own info might be spot on and the known history completely wrong ). I do hope you follow my drift now. By the way, I don�t think anyone has commented on Peter Wood�s earlier mention of the love letters from three men found among Florie�s effects after she had been arrested and taken to prison. Don�t any of these count as evidence of multiple admirers, if not whore masters? Or are they known to have been written either before the diary was supposed to have begun, or after November 1888? Love, Caz PS Post coming up from Keith to RJ. But everyone please note that I haven't yet sent Keith the posts from John Omlor�s, on Friday, 25 January 2002 at 07:40 am, onwards.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 28 January 2002 - 03:20 pm
From Keith Skinner to R.J. Dear R.J. A belated �Happy New Year�! Could I refer you back to your opinion expressed on Thursday, 24 January 2002 � 10:55 pm � �It�s clear to me that the forger couldn�t really fit the Maybrick story very neatly together with the Ripper murders, so sort of clumsily had the whoremaster Brierley in the picture before his time, and then making some vague references towards the end of the diary to account for this blunder.� I�m very interested in this explanation because I am currently researching the Maybrick Case, in considerable depth, for a screenplay which has been commissioned by Columbia Pictures. It is the intention of the writer, (Bruce Robinson), and myself to make the script as accurate and historically responsible as possible � and for that reason, (in spite of our commissioning Anne Graham to work with us), the alleged Maybrick Journal � without authentication � will form no part in the dramatic reconstruction of events or character. But, apropos of what you have written, I remain curiously puzzled as to precisely when Florence did initially meet Brierley? This, for me, is crucial to establish in terms of making sense of their relationship. The conventional accepted belief is that Florence and Brierley first met in December 1888 at Battlecrease House. Certainly that is the impression conveyed by Ryan (1977) although Levy (1899) pushes it back to November 1888. However, Shirley Harrison states:- �In the winter of 1887 the Maybricks gave a dinner party. Among the guests was a cotton broker named Alfred Brierley�.� (p.34.hbk) Paul Feldman writes (p.72.hbk)� �The Maybricks gave frequent dinner parties and dances, and at an earlier one, in 1887, Florrie had met Alfred Brierley�� No source is cited for this 1887 date but, from memory, I think the source is hard � and I also have a feeling it is from an unpublished Home Office document, accessible at the Public Record Office. Given that my hazy recollection may be correct (and I will, of course, attempt to substantiate it), how might this previously unpublished detail be reconciled with your belief that whoever created the text of the Diary possessed only a superficial knowledge of the Maybrick case? Best Wishes Keith
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 28 January 2002 - 03:32 pm
Hi Paul, I hope you don't mind, but I think it would be helpful for your latest message on the 'Time for a Re-evaluation' board to be posted on this board, as it seems more relevant to our current discussion here: Author: Paul Begg Monday, 28 January 2002 - 10:33 am Hi John By the way, what is our source for James Maybrick watching the race from a bus? I know Bernard Ryan says this, but Trevor L. Christie says the Maybricks joined others 'in a private box to place their bets and watch the horses run'. This seems far more likely than that this group of people watched the race from the bus they'd hired to take them to the racecourse. And I also noted in Christie's book, for what it is worth, a footnoted comment that an article in the New York Harald indicated that the police had trailed Florence to her assignation with Brierley. 'If true', wrote Christie, 'the inference would seem to be that her husband had long been suspicious of her association with Brieley and was seeking evidence against them.' Christie further touches on affairs earlier than Brierley on pg64 (footnote).
Author: John Omlor Monday, 28 January 2002 - 04:37 pm
Hi Caz, First off, sorry about misinterpreting your initial remark earlier. It seems to me clear that the diary is inventing new historical facts all the time. But now I understand what you were saying about us as readers not doing it to excuse the diary or to attack it or to explain or defend it. Hi Paul, The account of the race in Ryan I believe comes from the trial transcript and the report of Mrs. Samuelson. I can try and check it later at home. But I recall that Ryan is quite clear about the fact that everyone was already set to watch the race from the omnibus near the racecourse (not an uncommon practice, I don't believe -- people still do it on some racecourses over here) and then Alfred went and bought grandstand tickets so that everyone could have a look at His Royal Highness, and it was notable to people that everyone then went to the grandstand except two people -- James and Gertrude. Because these were the only two that stayed behind, it no doubt caught people's attention. (Ryan also tells us that Gertrude was "smitten" with Brierly, who had gone to the grandstand with Florie on his arm, and had been for some time.) The difference in space between Florie and James is important, since witnesses at the trial told of James scolding Florence when she returned, for being away for so long, and Christina Samuelson reported that Florence said to her on the bus ride home that she would have it out with James for talking to her in public like that later when they got home. I don't have the trial transcripts at the moment, but anyone who does might check to see if Ryan is in fact telling us of this encounter as it was reported at the trial. I think he is. In any case, I do know that Maybrick did not go to see the Prince with Florie, because that is what was so important about this event at the trial -- that Maybrick stayed behind and did not get close to the Prince like Florie did and the resulting scene that happened when she returned. The diary , however, says "his Royal Highness was but a few feet away from yours truly." This can't be true if the accounts of Florie's going to see the Prince with Alfred and James not going and the exchanges between Florie and James upon her return testified to are correct. And we have no reason at all to think they are not. Even if Christie is correct and there was a box, the diary would still not be accurate, since we still know that it was Florie and Alf who went with Mrs. Briggs and Mrs. Hughes and the Marlborough boys and Mrs. Samuelson to see the Prince and not James -- thus the argument about her being away for so long. And Peter's pathetic argument about all this being a result of James not being able to tell distances remains wonderfully silly. Either he went and was close to the Prince ("less than a few feet" the diarist says later) or he did not and he was not. We know he was not. He stayed behind and waited for Florie to return. The diary says he was. The diary is wrong. And Peter's ridiculous attempt to wriggle and slip and slide and excuse the diary via some strange quirk men have with distances, all in order to save the diary through creative misreading, is more a sign of rhetorical desperation and the single-minded desire for the diary to be right at all costs than it is evidence of an honest investigation or a fair critical analysis. But I suspect many of you already knew that. All the best, --John
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 05:22 am
Hi John, Thanks for that. I�ll try harder in future to make my meaning crystal clear. You recall that �Ryan is quite clear about the fact that�.it was notable to people that everyone then went to the grandstand except two people -- James and Gertrude.� Not clear enough for our hoaxer apparently. But we�ve been over all this before, haven�t we? RJ even gave us a list of phrases the hoaxer lifted from Ryan. But I guess it�s just a case of accurately transferring some of the historical details handed him on a plate, sloppy over others. No big deal. Once you�ve got Ryan pinned down as a definite source, we can just have our hoaxer checking it properly one day and making a total hash of things the next, according to what the diary says. Now I�ve a little poser for you and RJ. Let�s assume the New York Herald article wasn�t making it up and that James was having Florie watched for evidence of an affair. Under those circumstances, he certainly wouldn�t have been voicing his suspicions to Florie or anyone else, would he? So his words to Florie, as overheard by Yapp, and Michael�s testimony, would not be evidence of a lack of knowledge on James� part � which is all I was trying to say in the first place, when I hadn�t seen Paul�s post on what Christie had to say about it. It�s not often possible to conclude that a person doesn�t know something from what they say, or from what someone else says about them. Yet that�s what you were both doing here. But we do have another example of a husband�s supposedly private words to his wife, where it is a whole lot easier to conclude a lack of knowledge. Mike Barrett�s words to Anne, �I know you wrote the diary� weren�t very enthusiastically grasped by either of you as evidence of a lack of knowledge on Mike�s part, were they? Yet, in the first case, you were relying on the hearsay evidence of two third parties, Alice Yapp and �sleazy� Michael Maybrick, to support your belief that the diary got it wrong and that James went to his grave unaware of his wife�s infidelity. And James would have had good reason to hide his knowledge from Florie if he was in the process of getting her caught at it. But in the second case, we have the written word of Mike to Anne, in a private letter, in circumstances where he couldn't have been pretending a lack of knowledge. There�d have been no point, because Anne knew whether she wrote the diary or not, and so she would also have known whether Mike could have known or not. He was accusing her, years after they both had the diary indoors, of writing the thing. And RJ�s only excuse went something like, �Well, as Shirley says, it�s no good trying to make sense of anything Mike has ever said.� Yet we try to make sense out of a few words (overheard by someone who is an unknown quantity at best, and out to cause trouble at worst) coming from a long-dead arsenic user about whose character we really don�t know that much. An honest investigation and fair critical analysis? Yes please. Love, Caz
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 06:24 am
Hi John O Thank you for that. Not being picky, just intrigued by the argument going on here and I don�t have much Maybrick material to hand and my first-hand knowledge of racecourses is lamentably limited to an annual �gourmet picnic� at the one at Folkestone. I therefore wonder how far the omnibus would have been from the Grandstand. I don�t get the impression from either Ryan or Christie that it was any great distance. Ryan sort of gives the impression that Brierley happened to be in the vicinity, joined the Maybrick party, impetuously nipped off to buy some grandstand tickets, popped back to hand them out, and then all but Maybrick and Gertrude Janion strolled off to see the king. It doesn�t sound like a hike. Then, says Ryan, �When Florence and Alfred returned, Maybrick scolded his wife loudly for being away too long�the others returning shortly, could feel the anger hanging in the air.� Florence remarked on the journey home that she would remonstrate with James when they got back �for speaking to me like that in public.� What public? Gertrude? Who else was around? Who else would have heard what was being said on the omnibus? I don�t know. I do wonder, though, because if the Grandstand was fairly close to the omnibus. could someone in James Maybrick�s circumstances have meant the King physically or perhaps actually have meant the Grandstand in which the King was present?
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 08:22 am
Hi Paul, You make a good point. Without anyone offering evidence of the real distance between James and the prince, or the omnibus and the Grandstand, I formed the strong, but possibly erroneous impression that it had to be a lot more than the 'few feet away' of the diary. And look at the line again: '...the thrill of seeing the whore with the bastard thrilled me more than knowing his Royal Highness was but a few feet away from yours truly...' [my emphasis] Does this add support to your idea about the prince being in the Grandstand, out of sight of James, but close to the omnibus, which no doubt would have parked as close as possible, considering all but two of its occupants were going to hoof it over to the Grandstand? In other words: '...seeing the whore...thrilled me more than knowing the prince was there in the Grandstand, which was but a few feet away from me and the omnibus.' Love, Caz
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 08:48 am
Hi John, Before you tell me, I shouldn't have said that bit about the diary line adding support to anything. What I should have said was, if there is any support for Paul's idea, would it show that the author might not have got it wrong after all? Sorry. Love, Caz PS Nearly left myself as the target again, when I want us to stick with the diary.
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 08:59 am
Hi Caz, I was with you in the first post, about Mike's line to Anne. But your reading of the diary line seems to me quite a deliberate stretch. We have to pay attention to the words on the page, and I do believe they indicate that the James in the diary was telling us he was very close to the Prince -- much closer than just in the same grandstand even and certainly closer than back in the bus with Gertrude and certainly closer than he would had to have been for him to speak of Florie being "away" for so long. "the thrill of seeing the whore with the bastard thrilled me more so than knowing His Royal Highness was but a few feet away from yours truly ha ha what a laugh if the greedy bastard would have known that he was less than a few feet away from the name all England was talking about he would have dies there and then. Regret I could not tell the foolish fool." "less than a few feet." I think any attempt to suggest that this means that James was in the bus or box and the Prince was in the grandstand and that they were still "less than a few feet" away is almost Woodian. The passage makes it clear that James was quite close to the Prince. It even suggests he was in speaking range. But when his party went to see the Prince, we know that James did not go and that they all went far enough away from James for him to scold Florie for being away for so long (and the "in public" would at least be the rest of the party that returned, wouldn't it, Paul?). If Florie had moved only "less than a few feet" from James to go see the Prince, how could James have scolded her for being away for so long? It makes no sense. In fact, if the Prince was "less than a few feet" from the bus or box and James, why would Alf and Florie and company have to go "away" at all? Of course, the lines can be tortured and language can be manipulated in any way the reader wants and the diarist can be excused via a violent reading against the grain. But at some point, we have to tally up the number of times such an operation is necessary and come to the conclusion that the words probably mean what they say despite their conflict with the history. But I'm sure Peter will appreciate the possibilities... Well, I'll stick to my reading on this one. On the other hand, Caz, you have me out of place when you cite Mike's words to Anne. Because I agree with you. I think they are further evidence concerning Mike's lack of knowledge and they do further complicate the question of what Mike did or did not know. I have always thought that. And I am also not at all sure when James first knew about Florie's affair with Brierly. But I see no evidence at all anywhere that it was before the first Ripper murder or that she was even having an affair then. And I have never seen the dates on any of the letters Peter mentions. And I certainly see no evidence at all anywhere that because he was perhaps aware of his wife's affair(s), James Maybrick butchered prostitutes in Whitechapel and Manchester in some sort of strange attempt at revenge. That's because there is no evidence that he ever did such a thing. But let the reading roll on. It's a fascinating study in reader-response if nothing else. All the best, --John
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 09:06 am
Hi Caz The impression I received from a quick reading of Ryan and Co., was that the Maybrick party arrived and later bumped into Brierley. Brierley then impetuously nipped off to buy some Grandstand tickets as a pressy for the assembled group. Therefore I don't think the bus would have parked close to the Grandstand on purpose. Nevertheless being in reasonably close proximity to the Grandstand would probably justify the expression 'a few feet away', unless, I suppose, that we insist on precisian accuracy - and would we get that in a genuine document? I dunno.
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 09:41 am
Paul, You've lost me. How would a bus "being in reasonably close proximity to the grandstand" justify James saying he was "less than a few feet away" from the Prince? Not even just "a few feet," Paul, but the diarist bothers to say "less than a few feet." And, more to the point, if he was less than a few feet away, why would he need to scold Florie for being away with Alf for so long when she went off to see the Prince? No one need talk about precision accuracy or anything of the sort. The events as described historically tell us that people, including Alf and Florie, went off to see the Prince and that James did not go -- he stayed behind. And when Florie returned from seeing the Prince, James scolded her for being away for so long. But the diary has James himself less than a few feet from the Prince. The two are in conflict. This seems fairly clear. In a rush, --John
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 10:24 am
Hi John I know, John, but don't you think it's taking things just a little too literally to place such a damning emphasis on the words 'a few feet' or even 'less' than a few feet'? Isn't it ever an expression that simply means 'close'? And I do think that the expression could have been applied to the Grandstand, not specifically to the Prince, in much the same way as you might describe someone in the room next to yours as being a few feet away, meaning the thickness of the wall rather than the actual physical presence of the person. As for why he would need to scold Florrie, I think the same question applies whether the bus was close to or far away from the Grandstand. In fact, don't you think it would apply more if the former applied? I mean, if Florrie and Alf were gone for longer than was reasonable for a short walk to the Grandstand, copping an eyeful of the Prince, then returning to the bus, Maybrick would have had reason to say something. But if it was a bit of a hike to get there and back, Maybrick's outburst seems far less reasonable. Either way, though, I doubt that the complaint had any merit. Florrie and Alf were back before anyone anyway. Sounds to me that a petulent James just wanted to pick a fight.
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 10:54 am
But Paul, Your own language demonstrates the problem. "If Florie and Alf were gone..." "then returning to the bus..." Florie and Alf went away. James didn't. Florie and Alf went to see the Prince. James didn't. It seems clear that James, therefore, never got "less than a few feet away" from the Prince, even figuratively. Especially if Florie and Alf and co, had to go away to see the Prince. Honestly, if you read Ryan's account of the event on pages 36 and 37 of his book where he describes everyone heading off to see the Prince and James and Gertrude staying behind, and then read the diary's words, where "James" has himself less than a few feet away from the Prince, possibly even within speaking distance, do you not think those two written accounts are in direct conflict? I certainly do. And when you say: "And I do think that the expression could have been applied to the Grandstand, not specifically to the Prince..." I have to disagree. The words on the page are very clear. In the book, the character of "James" positions himself only less than a few feet from His Royal Highness specifically. Given the reports of the event that we have, this seems to me wrong, especially since it was historically important in the Maybrick case that James did not go to see the Prince with the others and we know this for a fact. I'm not going to convince you, or anyone, of a single interpretation of any phrase, since there are always others -- it's in the nature of language itself. That's why reading the diary text is frustrating and people like Peter and Paul F. can continue to excuse all sorts of things in the diary despite there being no evidence whatsoever that it is authentic or even from the proper century. But I think I can send people to the account of the events that we have of James staying behind while his friends went off to see the Prince and then to the language in the diary where "James" puts himself less than a few feet from the Prince, and I think it would be reasonable to conclude that they conflict on this point. But I'll let it stand there unless you have further thoughts or questions. All the best, --John
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 11:57 am
Hi John Nope. No more thoughts No more questions. I was just suggesting a possible way that the �diary� and the historical record could be reconciled. But if that way isn�t possible then it's ticketyboo with me. I admit, though, that I am unpersuaded that the �diary� text explicitly means that Maybrick and the Prince were physically within touching distance. I think �a few feet� is rather commonly used to express closeness rather than specific distance. That�s why I asked how close the bus was. I would personally find �a few feet� acceptable if all that was meant was �in close proximity�. I wouldn�t feel that way if the bus had been parked on the other side of the racecourse. But as you say, it is a point of interpretation only. I wonder if the forger interpreted �a few feet� in the way I have suggested though?
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 03:06 pm
"And Peter's pathetic argument about all this being a result of James not being able to tell distances remains wonderfully silly". Thanks for the abuse John, I could certainly do with it after the great day I've had. But then Paul sums it all up in rather less words than I used by showing John that "a few feet" is just an expression that people use to quantify a distance. It really is rather puerile to repeat parts of my posts time after time after time. Once - acceptable. Four times - Puerile. What about all those "near misses" we keep getting with comets that come within ...ooohhhh, two hundred million miles of the earth? Near miss? Yes, in terms of space, but not under any other circumstances. So James is used to thinking that HRH lives in - where? Scotland? London? Whatever, they are both about 200 miles from Liverpool - and that means that when HRH is at the same race course as James he is perfectly entitled to use his "a few feet" expression. Even if the distance was a hundred yards, John, the diarist would still be perfectly reasonable in saying "a few feet" when he was used to being hundreds of miles away from HRH. But these are the depths to which you have sunk. Commanding everyone's attention with a fantastic sleight of hand trick to divert attention to the rather trivial matter of the diary's reference to the National, and away from the matters you find harder to deal with. Tell you what John, why don't we spend just as much time discussing Bill Waddell's reading of the likeness between the Galashiels letter and Maybrick's will? Or why don't we discuss Sir Jim again? You never did give a satisfactory answer to that one. There are a myriad of decent points we could discuss. But not the Grand National entry. It's not a diary breaker. It's not even important. And as Caz points out, the diarist supposedly read Ryan's book so thoroughly as to lift some quotes from it word for word, but then made basic mistakes with the rest of the text? No, of course not. And this next bit is pure John Omlor, "do as I say but not as I do" as my old mother used to say. She's not dead, she just doesn't say it any more. Anyway, to refresh your memories: ""James" has himself less than a few feet away from the Prince, possibly even within speaking distance. Classic. Re arrange these words if you will. Fulfillment. Wish. (Clue: A well known John Omlor expression). Possibly, possibly, possibly. Anything is possible. Cheers Peter ;}
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 03:10 pm
P.S. John, just to clarify (I find myself doing that so often recently), I wasn't suggesting that James had a problem with telling distances, just "suggesting" that James (like all of us) was prone to exaggeration. 'nuff said.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 06:54 pm
Hi, all: I know how much you all have missed me ... I am on a three day business meeting and have found a few moments-- "the thrill of seeing the whore with the bastard thrilled me more so than knowing His Royal Highness was but a few feet away from yours truly ha ha what a laugh if the greedy bastard would have known that he was less than a few feet away from the name all England was talking about he would have died there and then. Regret I could not tell the foolish fool." [emphasis mine] I think the main point about the speaker in the Diary is he is a self-aggrandizer, so of course he is going to use hyperbole to describe how close he is to the heir to the throne, so I don't think he is really telling us how close he is to the prince. He is merely bragging. Again. And it once more shows the boring repetitiveness of the document, and its artificiality that he has to repeat the closeness within a couple of lines. The mention of the prince here is just like the mention of Abberline or the Queen -- they are cyphers to compare with the ego of the Diarist. Sorry not to be able to support you exactly John but I do think we are talking about not the straight facts or even of the Diary getting this detail wrong but also the over-the-top writing style and exaggerations of the speaker. Best regards Chris George
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 07:44 pm
Hi Chris and Peter, So now we have two theories -- the "comet" theory and the "boasting" theory -- to account for the simple fact that the real James Maybrick was clearly not "less than a few feet" from the Prince and the character "James Maybrick" in the diary says he was. Well, as I've said, reading is a wonderfully creative act. And lord knows the diary remains vague enough on everything to allow for all sorts of ameliorations. But I just think this is all a way of getting around the fact that the diary and the history are at odds. I mean, Jesus, now we're talking about comets! Look, it's not hard. The diary has the "James" character say several times, explicitly, that he was "less than a few feet" from the Prince. The real James wasn't. We know this because he stayed behind when the others went off to see the Prince and he later scolded Florie for being away too long when she returned (so she had to be away, more than only "less than a few feet" away, no?). Now I am told, well "less than a few feet" could mean a lot more than that -- the distance between an omnibus and a separate grandstand, for instance; or well, "James" was probably boasting in his own private diary and didn't record the even the way it happened. I still believe the third possibility is much more likely. The event did not happen to the person who was writing about it and they got the way it really happened a bit wrong. And it seems to me this is just the sort of mistake a forger might indeed make. They've read Ryan. They know James and Alf and Florie were all at the race so they have their "James" speak of seeing Alf and Florie together and they know the Prince was at the race and so they have their "James" think about the irony of the Ripper being near the Prince. But when they place him repeatedly "less that a few feet" from the Prince and have him fantasize about speaking to the Prince, they have slipped a bit. Because the real James in fact didn't go with everyone to see the Prince. We know that for a fact. So he wasn't there. But still we have readers who want to allow that "less than a few feet" somehow figuratively covers the distance from a parked omnibus to the Prince in the grandstand (where everyone but James and Gertrude went off to). Because, after all, when comets come within two hundred million miles of the earth , we talk about a "near miss" (well, this is certainly proof of something.... I have no idea what, though.) or because the distance between the bus and the grandstand is, after all, smaller than the distance between Liverpool and London or Scotland (well, damn! Why didn't I think of that?). Yes, that last one was seriously offered as an explanation. Come on, people. We're not talking comets and we're not talking cities. We're talking "less than a few feet" versus the distance between a bus and the Prince in a separate grandstand that everyone else went to visit (to see the Prince) and that we know the real James did not go to visit (to see the Prince). Clearly, James, the real James, was never "less than a few feet" from the Prince in real life, even figuratively. And as to the exaggerating and boasting-in-his-own-diary theory. That can be used, of course, to explain any potential historical conflict. If we know the diary lies, then nothing in the diary can ever be ultimately or reliably checked against the record. Because if it disagrees with the record, then we can just say the diarist is boasting or lying for his own purposes. In that case, the diary becomes a thoroughly unreliable document and finally completely worthless and we can stop now because reading it will be a waste of time. Anyone want to nod in agreement at this final point? Now, onward to Peter's desperate plea to talk about other things (after he tellingly calls the account of the race in the diary "trivial"). Once again, Bill Wadell, a retired traffic policeman and museum curator and not in any way an expert on handwriting, has never said word one about the writing in the diary. And the writing in the diary looks nothing at all like the writing in either the Maybrick will or the Galahseil's letter. So, a.) his conclusion about whether the will and the letter were written by the same hand is not that of an expert in these matters and is only an initial reaction in any case; and b.) neither text looks anything like the diary, so the question is rendered irrelevant to the question of whose hand wrote the diary --since it is not in the same hand as the letter or the will or the Baltic letter or any of James Maybrick's known writing. (As an aside: I have been told recently that Bill Wadell does not believe James Maybrick wrote this diary. I can try and get him to make a statement confirming this if anyone really needs it.) And once again, no one ever called the real James Maybrick "Sir Jim." No one, ever, anywhere on record. And finally, once again, speaking of things worth talking about, I post this paragraph for the third time -- hoping thrice is a charm. This time I send it out not only to Peter but to anyone in cyberspace. Is there anyone out there? Can anyone perform this simple task? Give me one piece of verifiable material, documentary, or testimonial evidence that clearly supports this book's claim to being authentic or to having even existed in the 19th century or that directly links it, historically, to the real person who is its supposed author. I suspect I will be hearing only the sound of silence on this one. Now I must shower off the dust from the course and settle into a cold beer and warm woman. All the best, --John
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 11:42 pm
Keith--Hello. I take the conventional view. I think Florie's remarks to her council make it fairly plain that her initial [and perhaps only] fling with Brierley took place at Flatman's hotel in March 1889. She taunted him to meet her in London, and he did. As I already argued, Alice Yapp's testimony suggests to me that Maybrick's suspicions didn't surface until the day of the Grand National. And this is clearly Michael Maybrick's take on the situation as well. So if the diary does suggest that Florie & Brierley were involved before the autumn of 1888--and Maybrick was aware of it-- then I think it is playing fast and loose with the historical record. But I realize that there are two distinct issues at play here. First, is the diary accurate about Florie's affair? And second, [depending on how we answer the first question], what does this tell us about the forger's source material? I believe you are mainly concerned with the second isssue, as am I; but unless the first question is resolved, I don't really see how the second question can be answered with any level of confidence. My opinion is that Florie's affair is moved back in time to supply a 'motive' for Maybrick being Jack the Ripper. But, unfortunately for the forger, this doesn't work very well with the 'conventional' history, just as arsenic doesn't work very well as a mind altering drug. Of course Caz argues that the 'whoremaster' in the early part of the diary is not Brierley. I think she makes a reasonable argument. I certainly can't prove that she is wrong. But if this is the case, I think it is reasonable for me to ask for this person to be identified. Is there such a person? It certainly isn't Edward Maybrick. Is it 'Williams'? If so, what is the source of this information? As far as I know, this allegation was made only in a letter by Aunspaugh--which also names Edwin Maybrick as an earlier paramour. If this is the diary's source, isn't it rather odd that the diary's attitude toward Edwin is so benign? You see, I'm looking, but I'm not finding, much evidence that the Maybrick diary contains obscure information. If it does, why does the diarist do such an excellent job in hiding it? All I can say is, if if I had little-known facts at my disposal, I would make pains to let them be known. I'd name 'Williams' or a victim in Manchester. And if I didn't, I think it would be reasonable to argue that it was because I couldn't. It is possible that the diary could have been constructed using very diverse and hard to obtain sources. In this case, it would be a very mysterious document. But it is also possible that the diary was created using a few modern sources. For me, it's much easier to accept that that is the case. I guess that's all my arguments really boil down to. Is it reasonable to believe that the forger would have access to Whitechapel coroner's papers and letters by John Aunspaugh? I can readily see why Paul Feldman argued that the diary either has to be genuine or a modern forgery. I see the "old forgery" argument as being extemely problematic. Best wishes, RJ Palmer P.S. My apologies for what is a rather tedious response. I'll be eager to see that Maybrick film! Cheers.
Author: david rhea Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 11:47 am
I think you are right here.Since the Diarist did not expect a reading pubilc, if he had been Maybrick, there would be no need to hide the names.The name of his clerk, Lowery, is given and dealt with in a blast of murderous anger.He could have said-'I could have killed that bastard clerk of mine--- Damn him ,damn him, damn him--Why hide names? If these were the rantings of a obsessed cuckold, it appears that naming names would be much more satisfying. If you want to send someone to hell why not name him and imagine his or her torturewith a sort of perverse satisfaction.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 12:41 pm
Hi John, The diary author doesn�t actually say anything about seeing the prince. As I quoted before: '...the thrill of seeing the whore with the bastard thrilled me more than knowing his Royal Highness was but a few feet away from yours truly...' He seems to be saying that he is only aware that the prince is very nearby. Why, if he is having James boast about his proximity to blue blood (and I don�t see the problem you do with this, considering all the references to Sir Jim and knightings), would he not go the whole hog and say ��more than seeing his Royal Highness in the flesh, but a few feet away��? You write: �Look, it's not hard. The diary has the "James" character say several times, explicitly, that he was "less than a few feet" from the Prince.� Several times eh? And: �But when they place him repeatedly "less that a few feet" from the Prince and have him fantasize about speaking to the Prince, they have slipped a bit. Because the real James in fact didn't go with everyone to see the Prince.� Repeatedly eh? You see how easy it is to exaggerate about quantity as well as distance? But the point is that as long as Florie is out of James� sight, in the Grandstand with the others and the prince, she is effectively �away� from her husband, whether the physical distance is great or small. James would have felt rather awkward and probably foolish striding over to where those who had taken advantage of Brierley�s Grandstand tickets were assembled together and making a song and dance about why his wife had not yet returned to his side, when he hadn�t wanted a ticket for himself to see the prince. But at least the James of the diary doesn�t claim to have seen the prince, only to know he was very nearby. Would you concede that much, John, if we were to find that the Grandstand had been say thirty feet or so from where James could have been waiting for Florie and �the bastard�? Hi RJ, Thanks for your reply, which I will pass on to Keith as soon as possible. Do you really think Florie would have been wise to give any more away about her affair(s) than was strictly necessary to her council or anyone else at her trial? Her infidelity was not only the diarist�s motive for James becoming the ripper. It was the motive they would use to try to have her hung. I'm not sure you can argue that there was no more to it than a quick one at Flatman's because that's all she admitted. And why did I guess that you would suddenly think I had made a reasonable argument for the 'whoremaster' in the early part of the diary not being Brierley � now that Keith has suggested there is hard evidence that the couple met before the murders? You very rarely give me credit for reasonable arguments concerning the diary. And just by way of a little experiment, try replacing the diary�s benign attitude towards Edwin with bitter sarcasm for each and every reference (which I did very early on, and before, I believe, I�d seen any documented suggestion that James might have been jealous of him), and see if it looks to you like �James� could be aware of, or suspect, a betrayal by wife and once-beloved brother. Love, Caz
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 01:36 pm
Hi Caz, Actually, the phrase "a few feet" is repeated in the diary, isn't it? (I'm at work and without my copy.) I seem to recall it appearing at least twice, along with the mention of James thinking about speaking with the Prince. And I think the reading of the word "knowing" in the sentence you cite is still a bit tortured. The diarist places himself "less than a few feet" from the Prince. But history tells us James stayed behind when others went to see the Prince. To me, this indicates a conflict. As I've said, this can be re-interpreted in ways (either comet-like or boasting-like) in order to get around this conflict, but the conflict I still believe is in the prose. And the question of "exaggeration" is another problem. Placing James back on the bus and the Prince in a separate grandstand (where others had to go see him) and then saying the use of the phrase "less than a few feet away" is just an exaggeration of proximity is granting an inordinate amount of vague leeway to the phrase, it seems to me. Apparently, others disagree. I think a more reasonable explanation for all of this is that the person writing the passage wasn't there. And they got it slightly wrong. But you can claim "a few feet" is an exaggeration for some reason to an undetermined degree or a figure of speech that doesn't really mean what it says or a false boast and you can read the line you cite to somehow mean that the James in the diary was telling us he didn't see the Prince (I don't think the line is saying that at all) and you can excuse the diary thereby for its vagueness once again. But this seems to me to ignore a pattern. This has to be done over and over again, with phrase after phrase and detail after detail. At a certain point I think we have to start just admitting that the only way this diary can be rescued is by torturing its language to death and by rewriting the history. That was my point from the beginning. I am late for class and must head out at this point, but I promise to reply in more detail to all of these questions later. All the best, --John PS: As a way of saving time, I should mention that I share all of your questions about Mike's curious and conflicted and incomprehensible behavior, as you outlined them on the other board. And I too don't understand why the bloody Sphere Guide is still around in any case.
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 03:22 pm
Hi, John: I agree with you when you say that "the only way this diary can be rescued is by torturing its language to death and by rewriting the history." The point I was making about the speaker saying he was only a few feet away from the prince at the Grand National is that whomever concocted the Diary was not there at the time and that's why they are unable to give an exact distance from the prince. So of course they themselves are rewriting history. Chris
Author: Peter Wood Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 03:40 pm
Dear John When you are able to tell me clearly and precisely how far away James' bus was from the grandstand then you can discuss with me the issue of whether or not the diarist was simply wrong when he say "less than a few feet". And a nod of the head to Caz for catching you out over your use of "repeatedly". Twice does not constitute "repeatedly". I've told you a million times not to exaggerate, John. Peter
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 03:53 pm
Caz--Well, you're wrong there, I think, because I always felt it was reasonable to suggest that the Maybrick diarist was aware that Brierley didn't really make the scene until 1889. I just completely disagree with you about what this means. And if Keith has proof that Brierley was carrying on with Florie before 1888 I certainly haven't seen it! All he has stated is that Brierley might have met Florie before this date. This isn't enough to suggest that Ryan, Christie, etc. have it wrong, and that Florie's romance started much earlier than what they suggest--after November 1888. I still stick to my guns on this one. The diary's story line doesn't fit the current historical record. You really can't expect me to take it on faith that it is accurate can you? Like taking the Manchester murders on faith, when no one has proven that they had happened? Or on faith that some obscure small-time ink manufacturer in Victorian times would have used chloroacetamide? If you want to convince me, you'll have to come up with specific evidence. I don't think that's unreasonable. Best wishes, RP PS. Peter Wood, hello. Florie & Brierley strolled across the greenward to get to the Grandstands. Aintree is a large course.