|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 3, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through May 3, 2000
Author: Mark Goeder
Thursday, 27 April 2000 - 12:37 pm |        | Hi Jill,
I think Maybrick WAS a John Doe.
I would like to know how many people raised their eyebrows when they first heard the name Maybrick.
It also depends on who you are before you can relate to the term John Doe.
To me and maybe millions Mayrick was just another John Doe.
To a historian or a criminal investigator Maybrick maybe wasnt a John Doe.
But they still didnt suspect him.
druitt wasnt an obvious suspect as you suggest
Lets say the diary was forged about the turn of the century.Druitt wasnt a KNOWN suspect then.
Only after the Macnaughten notes were brought to the surface by Cullen in 1959 were we to here the name M.J. Druitt.
Dan Farson told the story about 6 years later, but told a different version.
This is where Druitt first came on the scene.
Scotland yard had some suspicians but had nothing to work on.The public wasnt aware of Druitt at the turn of the century.
So he couldnt have been a "too obvious choice".
If the forgery is modern, then I would agree with you.
About the diary not being the first of its kind
(your bit about Melvin Harris).
I know its not the first diary.
But its the first RIPPER diary.
If its true what Melvin Harris said about the forger only needing 2 or 3 Ripper books to be able to write the diary, then it should be in the rubbish bin together with the Hitler diary.
If you believe Harris on that one ,why the hell is he still trying his hardest to prove the diary a forgery.
He should have won by now.
Anyway Jill, I still think the diary as based on true facts.
James Maybrick was nothing special.
You could call him John Doe
So was Sutcliff
So was chikatilo
So was Kürten and so many other mass killers.
One more thing, your profile says you have no ripper suspect.If you weighed up all you know about the ripper who is more likely to be the ripper in your eyes?
You half admit that there are some pointers linking Florie and James to JTR.
Please let me know who your suspect is if you have one.
Mark ( you know......the Crusader ) |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 28 April 2000 - 03:10 am | | Hi, Mark 'Cruse'
I'm working on my theory (actually nothing more than a bungle and jungle of analyses, but no names yet) you asked for: that is I'm writing some of those things down in a mail for you; it's too much for a post. A lot of these things can also be found all over the board, particularly the victims' one and general one.
Cheers,
Jill. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 28 April 2000 - 10:28 am | | G'day Simon,
Have a look at my review of Stephen Knight's 'Final Solution', on another board.
Leanne! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 28 April 2000 - 05:20 pm | | Though flogging this dead animal has been both good fun and wholesome excercise, I am going to take Caz's hint and move on to other things. But I can't resist taking one last swat at the poor beast before I leave it for good:
Mark--this idea doesn't originate with me, but I'd like to repeat it as one of the best and most irrefutable arguments against the authenticity of the diary: The diary blatantly imitates the "Dear Boss" letter. It is known that the "Dear Boss" letter was written by the journalist T.J. Bulling. Besides, the diary has different handwriting then the "Dear Boss" letter. And neither handwriting is that of Maybrick. Ergo, the diary is not only a forgery, but is also a forgery of a forgery!
(With that, I ceremoniously break a riding crop over my knee...er, though I actually think the diary is more along the lines of Salvadore Dali's surrreal rotting donkey than a proper riding horse)
BTW, in M. Barrett's characteristically confusing affidavit he mentions something about Crime No. 16391.J.95.CR.001 (whatever that is) and elsewheres I remember it being claimed that Scotland Yard is (or was) pursuing it under the "Forgery and Counterfeit Act". I'm still wondering if this is true or whether it is (to continue the horse metaphor) a load of the bi-product of our equine friends. It seems to me hoax cases are unique in that those fleeced wouldn't necessarily want legal proceedings, especially since:
(a) it shows them to be fools: and
(b) it tends to confirm the worthlessness of an item for which they paid a great deal of money.
If I bought the Brooklyn Bridge (and Gawd knows I have on more than one occasion) I certainly wouldn't want to advertise it...at least until I recooped my losses by gathering tolls from unwary dupes. In my humble opinion, Smith Gryphon's future interest in the diary must rely on the question of its authenticity still being in doubt.
Just a thought....
Cheers.
RJP
P.S. I think the diary was written by a woman. I can't explain why in any quantitative way...it just seems like it to me. (Er, I hope that isn't insulting to the feminine sex! Would it help if I said some of my favorite writer's are women?) |
Author: Mark Goeder
Friday, 28 April 2000 - 07:05 pm | | hi there RJP
I have a feeling you wont be moving on to new things at all.
Thats the reason you are still hanging around.
Without going in to detail, you still havent proved a thing yet.
Even if most of you dont like me saying it, I ll say it again. "You yet have to prove your point"
I know Im repeating myself.
I know Im making an easy excuse.
The thing is ITS TRUE
You havent proved a thing yet...... I m sorry.
The diary is still sitiing there. Its getting more publicity now than ever.
Thats why you are hanging around RJP.
Anyway,what you you want to carry on with?
The diary "fight" has not been won yet.
No matter how hard you try to detroy the theory, it ll be there again in the morning.
The Boss letter doesnt mean a thing.
Its irrelevant and still doesnt prove a thing.
Colin Wilson was shown a sample of Maybricks handwritting from 1881.When compared to the boss letter,the Handwriting was nearly identical.
Even the JTR signature was nearly identical.
A strong arguement for the AGE of the diary came from the failed attempt my Melvin Harris to prove that there was chloroacetamide in the ink
They came up with this:
A one billionth part was found.
But they only tested it once.
The ink was tested again, this time at Leeds University. They also found a very minute particle.So they repeated the test this time and what was the answer?
No chloroacetamide was found.
To make sure, they also done the same test with the paper.
Result?.........none.
If anyone wants to keep testing, go ahead then, but bring your wallet.This is going to cost big time money.
By the way, do you mean the diary was written by a woman or the ripper the ripper was a woman?
To be honest, you are going to have to slogg a little longer untill this animal is dead
Kepp the flag flying RJ....so will I
Mark
by the way |
Author: Mark Goeder
Friday, 28 April 2000 - 07:08 pm | | oooops, I meant KEEP the flag flying.
(forget the "by the way bit")
sorry
Mark |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 28 April 2000 - 10:36 pm | | Hello Mark and RJ:
Hello, R. J., yes, the police officials, i.e., Sir Melville Macnaghten and Sir Robert Anderson, said that a journalist was responsible for Dear Boss, and Chief Inspector John George Littlechild in his famous letter of 1913 to George R. Sims specifically names a journalist of the name of "Bullen" as being responsible, along with his boss Moore. This is an obvious reference to Thomas J. Bulling of the Central News Agency. However, I have examined Bulling's writing and do not find a direct correspondence between the clerkly hand shown in the the Dear Boss correspondence and the less disciplined hand of Bulling.
It is quite true that the Diary infers that Maybrick was responsible for the Dear Boss and Lusk letters. I do believe though that Mark is wrong in saying that Wilson found that Maybrick's writing matched Dear Boss. Feldman shows a later Dear Boss letter that shows some comparison with Maybrick's handwriting but the writing in that letter does not match the handwriting in the original Dear Boss communications! What people lose sight of is that there were upwards of 2,000 letters received by the authorities, many of them imitative of the initial Dear Boss letters. In other words, it is possible to pick one that matches the handwriting of your chosen suspect, but that does not mean it was sent by the killer -- it was more probably sent by yet another hoaxer.
Chris George |
Author: Mark Goeder
Saturday, 29 April 2000 - 05:15 am | | Chris George,
I think that Colin wilson and Paul Feldman know the differences between the fake "boss" letters and the original.
As Colin Wilson is one of the oldest "ripperologists" around I think we can assume that he is probably a good judge.
Mark |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 29 April 2000 - 11:58 am | | Hi, Mark:
The point is that no one knows which Ripper letters, if any, are genuine. Wilson is not in any better position to judge than anyone else. The Lusk ("From Hell") letter probably has the most going for it, providing the half a kidney accompanying the letter in the parcel that was received by George A. Lusk on October 16, 1888, was from Catherine Eddowes. However, there is doubt that the kidney was genuine, and Christopher-Michael DiGrazia in his article on the Lusk kidney in the March issue of Ripper Notes concluded that it was a practical joke.
Chris George |
Author: Mark Goeder
Monday, 01 May 2000 - 06:24 pm | | hi,
The very first time I posted anything here I got quite a shock as an answer.
I had to read post from people who made it clear to me that they wouldnt bother taking the time to explain to me the reason why the diary is a fake.
I could also tell by the "tone" in some of the other answers that i had entered a heaty debate.
I was told to read through the rest of information as I was obviously not well enough informed.
Michael J Bruneio (post from april 1) sums up the attitude I have got to learn in the last few weeks.Dont forget, Bruneio was the guy who responded to my first posting.
I really suprised.
So I started thinking that I was totaly in the wrong.
I felt like I was the only person who half believes the diary because your arguements seemed so strong and convincing.
So I ve spent the last 2 weeks browsing around and taking a close look at the evidence suggesting that the diary was a hoax.
Now I know why old Michael Bruneio didnt "neither the time or the inclination" to list me the REAL facts.
And just to make sure I didnt persist he ended with " colossal waste of time "
Anyway after reading around I have come to the conclusion that Michael and many other like him just dont have a leg to stand on.
There is NO solid evidence around to prove the diary s authenticity.
If there was any evidence around, it would have surfaced by now.I think most people know that by now.
I repeat my views once more. It MUST be proved beyond a single doubt that the Maybrick diary is a forgery.
Most of you are already trying to do that.
Thats your part. i know you all dont agree with me , but its true.
The diary doesnt have to do anything.
Its there and it wont go away untill you ve proved its a forgery OR you burn it.
Even if the Pro diarists suddenly decided to drop the theory, it will still be there.
The Hitler is gone.
Why is the Maybrick diary still here?
Where did it come from?
Anne admitted that she didnt write the diary and that it had been in the family for quite a time
( I think early 40s )
After listening to her story, I must say this changes the outlook on the whole thing.
The diary came from the Barretts.As they are both telling different stories it can only mean that one of them is lying. But who?
Michael?
Michael from "M15"
This poor chap didnt know what he was holding when he first held the diary.
It destroyed him completely.
Anne told her story as it happened.
She wasnt lying either. She certainly wouldnt have risked her family name.
He father admitted in a TAPED interview that if he had known what the book was worth he would have cashed in on it years before.
Poor old anne was destroyed too.
She recieved no cash for her confession.
She isnt even interested in the diary anymore.
So much for the " modern forgery theory "
How about the early forgery?
The tin box was empty.How did the writer know.
The police list only surfaced in 1987 showing: "one tin box , empty"
Only the killer could have known this.
The ink was tested by leeds university and came up with more support showing that there was NO chloracetimide in either the ink or the paper.
We also know that Chloracetimide was around long before the diary was written.
We also know that Maybrick lived in Whitechapel in the 1860. He lived near Whitechapel and was therfore familiar with his surroundings
He was no stranger to Whitechapel.
And so on and so on.
Some of the facts have been branded "pure coincidence".
The "M" on kellys wall.it doesnt have to be proved.Its there on the photo so we can all see it.
He DID also carve an " M " in to Eddowes face.
( or 2 inverted V s )
He did know that the "heart was absent" because he cut the damn thing out himself.
NO WHERE was a missing heart to be found untill it recently surfaced in Kelly s autopsy report.
Someone mentioned Maybricks memories of the Kelly murder.
He said put the breasts on the table with the other stuff.The fact they they were not on the table doesnt mean a thing.
He had NO LIGHT. All he had was a load of flesh in his hands. He couldnt have known what he was holding in his hands in the room in near pitch black.
If any of you held a rumpsteak in you right hand and a filet steak in you left hand, and then turned of the lights.........would you know the difference?
Sorry bout that, I know its a bit tasteless.
That is a very logical explanation, he just lost count of what he was doing.
Howmany forgers knew that he called himself Lord Jim?
How many forgers knew about his feelings for his family or yet even for his wife?
how many forgers knew about the long time effects of drug addiction and the long time effects?
I could go on all night.
Look how much evidence there is pointing to the diary and how little there is against it.
Sometimes I wonder what people are trying to achieve here.
I read a posting recently that made my blood curl!
There are really people discussing whethere or not May kelly was Fat or slim.
One of the guys writing was explaining that if you took the flesh off the table and stuck it back on where it belonged you would be able to see that she was in fact a bit podgy as opposed to being slim.
Another guy was trying to generate a 3 D Picture of the kelly scene.
Are these people "Ripperologists" too?
I hope not.
Theguy I most feel sorry for is Melvin Harris.
I respect him as a writer,but his obsession in trying to prove the diary a forgery will one day be legendary.
To sum up, I would have to agree with one of the greatest and one of the oldest ripperologists of our time: Colin Wilson.
" I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT THAT JACK THE RIPPER AND JAMES MAYBRICK WERE THE SAME PERSON"
Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 07:08 am | | Hi All,
Just popped in to see how Mr. D'ed, the deceased talking horse, is enjoying his flogging today.
With regard to the diary not being in Maybrick’s handwriting, Jill made a reasonable point in her post of 17th April @ 12.44pm. She pointed out that Maybrick’s will only surfaced after the diary was written, so the hoaxers had nothing to guide them. This assumes they would have copied Maybrick’s style if only they’d seen it.
But let’s think this one through. We have Anne or Mike, presumably having done some homework to check that reams of Maybrick writing was not freely available before putting pen to paper. They found none, but didn’t bother to check, or just didn’t realise that a will could exist. They went ahead anyway, choosing any old style, so long as their own handwriting was effectively disguised.
But they didn’t even make a stab (sorry!) at copying the writing in the ripper communications, very much available and claimed by the diarist as his own work. And wasn’t that another strange thing for our modern forgers to have done? If they were using the most up-to-date ripper sources, wouldn’t they have found that no one still believed any of the letters were really from the killer?
Hi Mark,
I see you have now given some thought to the stories told by Anne and Mike regarding how the diary came into their hands.
Do you realise you have more or less made Martin Fido’s point about the empty tin matchbox? If you read pages 91-92 of Feldman’s book, you will see that Martin says this makes the diary ‘either genuine or a very modern forgery.’
But what if Anne’s story were to be accepted, that she first clapped eyes on the diary in the swinging sixties? She first told it in 1994, untroubled by the cries of “hoax!” already being heard, and apparently quite prepared for the cries of “liar!” which would inevitably follow, when the ripper experts saw the obvious problem with her story. Even if Martin’s view was questioned (and do we know if anyone did?), it would still force people to account for the diary’s existence, and poor old Melvin Harris would have to rethink his hoax analysis.
Hey Mark, instead of feeling sorry for Melvin, you could help him in his legendary quest to prove the diary is something any old fool could have produced. Why not challenge him to make his own ripper diary? He only has to find himself a Victorian scrapbook, some suitable ink, a hysterical, sorry, historical character to turn into Jack, chuck in a gold watch, keep the whole thing bubbling for the next decade or so, and hey presto! He will have proved himself to be Mike Barrett’s intellectual equal!
Only kidding. I have a feeling Mike actually did go down this road himself, but failed at the first hurdle when he bought that little red Victorian diary in 1992. When it arrived he realised it was too small, but we don’t know if he thought there was a problem with it being dated 1891, two years after Maybrick’s death!
Shirley Harrison, on pages 232-233 of her 1994 paperback, gives us this insight: ‘…in his (Mike’s) happier days, I had sometimes asked him to do simple research in Liverpool, so that he could feel involved. He was always desperate to play his part, and yet I knew how confused and agitated he became when he could not understand the fairly simple tasks I set him.’
Pity Shirley did not elaborate on these simple tasks. You and Melvin could have compared them with the simple tasks involved in creating this hoax.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 08:35 am | | G'day Mark, Caz, everyone,
The newspaper reports of the day, were not consistent about the number of rings that were on Chapman's finger. Some said 3, others said 2. The 'Diary's' author had a 50/50 chance and wrote:
'One ring, two rings,
a farthing one and two'
This can be interpreted both ways:
'Ring one, ring two' or 'One ring, then another two rings'. The Diarist was playing it safe!
The farthings were mentioned in the 'Daily Telegraph' of 10th of September 1888.
If Kelly's heart was taken away by her killer, then the 'Diary' is a fake:
'I regret I did not take any of it away with me it is supper time, I could do with a kidney or two ha ha'.
The last page says: 'May God forgive me for the deeds I committed on Kelly, no heart no heart'.
Again this allows for a two-way interpretation.
'Tin match box empty'???????????
I can't work out that one!
I think the forger had to be close to the Maybrick family!
Leanne! |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 10:52 am | | Hi All,
Caz writes:
>Do you realise you have more or less made Martin Fido’s point about the empty tin matchbox? If you read pages 91-92 of Feldman’s book, you will see that Martin says this makes the diary ‘either genuine or a very modern forgery.’
OK, let's examine those two possibilities in the context of the empty tin box passage, and see if we can determine which is most likely.
In order to accept this section of the diary as genuine, i.e., a factual account of the murder of Eddowes written by the killer, one must accept that the killer rifled Eddowes' pockets, made a mental note of their contents, then *put them back*, then went home and wrote about them in the diary using *the exact same phraseology* that appeared in the police inventory. An incredible series of most unlikely coincidences, each one of which must be true in order for the diary to be genuine.
OTOH, in order to accept that this section of the diary brands it as a modern forgery, one need only accept that the phrase 'tin match box, empty' was simply copied from the police inventory after it became public in 1987. IMHO, this is far more likely to be the truth, as it is a simple explanation that does not depend on a fantastic sequence of unlikely coincidences.
If anyone honestly believes that the 'tin match box, empty' passage constitutes evidence that the diary is genuine, then I have some slightly damp real estate in southern Florida for sale, I'm sure you'd be interested. PT Barnum was right, there is one born every minute.
Jim |
Author: Mark Goeder
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 03:55 pm | | hi leanne
Just how close was the writer of the diary to James Maybrick?
What do you think?
Mark |
Author: Mark Goeder
Wednesday, 03 May 2000 - 03:07 am | | Hi leanne
Sorry about the "match box". My mistake
Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 03 May 2000 - 06:35 am | | Hi Jim,
Good to see you.
I absolutely take your point about the absurdity of a forger quoting verbatim from a police inventory only seen by the public post-1987, trying to weave it into the diary and praying not one ripper expert will smell a rat. :-)
Where exactly did the forger find the tin match box reference, and was he/she aware that it was a previously unpublished item? Does the forger's post-1987 ripper source state this clearly, or did the forger know from researching the case thoroughly?
Our forger, after listing 'tin match box empty', 'cigarette case', 'the whores knife', and later adding 'tea and sugar', then goes on to write that Abberline 'keeps back all that he can'. 'Nothing is mentioned, of this I know sure...'
Is the diarist saying he knows the tin match box was withheld from the list of possessions made public in 1888? If so, it seems an incredible blunder to quote the item as it appeared on a document which, by his own admission, he could not have known even existed, let alone seen.
So why did an intelligent woman like Anne Graham, if she was involved in forging this diary, not even begin to realise by July 1994 that such blunders had been made and were being, couldn’t fail to be, exposed? Mike had just confessed to creating it himself and they had been separated six months. Instead of keeping her head down and continuing to plead ignorance about the diary’s origins, she chooses this late stage to jump in with both feet, oblivious that her 1960s story would be quickly viewed as absurd and treated with contempt.
I wish I could begin to make some sense of it all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 03 May 2000 - 08:19 am | | G'day Mark,
On page 309 of Stephen Knights: 'Final Solution', it says 'after she was married,` (Florence), had relationships with at least three men, one of whom was James's younger brother, Edwin'.
James Maybricks Will was a question of debate in 1891. There are 2, maybe 3 versions of the will. The 'proved' one was supposedly written and signed on the 25th of April 1889. On that day, Edwin Maybrick returned to Liverpool from America.
Edwin Maybrick was seen coming out of James's bedroom on the night he died. A scream was heard downstairs of "Oh Lord, if I am to die, why am I to be worried like this?"
This is just what I read tonight. I am not accusing Edwin Maybrick of forging the Diary, (I don't know enough about it!), but I am merely pointing out how easy it would have been for someone close to JM!
I'm no expert on the Diary, what does everyone else think about this?
Leanne! |
Author: Christopher T. George
Wednesday, 03 May 2000 - 10:54 am | | Hi, Leanne:
Unless you are saying that Stephen Knight knew about Maybrick, I assume you mean NOT "page 309 of Stephen Knight's 'Final Solution'" but "page 309 of Paul Feldman's 'Final Chapter'." Am I right?
As for the entry in the Diary "tin match box empty" this has to be a pretty good indication that something is amiss with the Diary since the natural thing would be to say "an empty tin match box." Only if you are COPYING an inventory would you list it as "tin match box empty."
Chris |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 03 May 2000 - 05:42 pm | | Or perhaps, even "damn it, the box was empty." The phraseology "the TIN box was empty" strikes me as an added filip by a forger. If the Diary mentions a "box" and the inventory of Eddowes' posessions a "tin match box," then no eyebrows would be raised.
But by saying "the tin box was empty," this is a direct reference to the unreleased inventory, and guaranteed to provoke one of two reactions; either assurance that the Diary must be real, or the knowing smirk that by trying to perfect a forgery, the one extra word "tin" ruined it all.
It's just one of those small, niggling details. Why add the qualifier to the empty box if not to draw attention to a document which could be interpreted as proving the Diary's bona fides?
CMD |
Author: Mark Goeder
Wednesday, 03 May 2000 - 06:00 pm | | HI CMD
Good question there.
The only problem is that you cant "weigh" every single word he wrote down.
Tin box was only describing what he saw.
If it would of been out of wood, what then?
A wooden box of course.
There is absolutely nothing spectacular about writing down what he saw.
If you still think it seems a bit strange then ask yourself why he bothered writing it down in the first place.
Dont forget he was writing a diary.
Mark |
|
|
|
|
