Archive through 09 February 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 09 February 2002

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!: Archive through 09 February 2002

Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 04 February 2002 - 09:46 am
From Keith Skinner to John Hacker Dear John, In your post to Caroline of Monday, 28 January 2002 � 08:38 pm you ask about the ink:- �Was Mike specific about why he added sugar?� This was the very question I put to Mike when I publicly interviewed him at the Cloak & Dagger Club in April 1999. I do not wish to misrepresent Mike�s response, (his exact words were recorded on tape and video), but � from memory � I believe he said the addition of sugar separated the molecules in the ink. Best wishes Keith
Author: david rhea Monday, 04 February 2002 - 10:21 am
Dear Caz: Thanks-I stand corrected.
Author: John Omlor Monday, 04 February 2002 - 12:26 pm
Hi Caz, Good point about Anne's handwriting. I agree with you when you say: "If you are going to put forward an argument for Anne as the penwoman, aren�t you under a similar obligation to have her handwriting analysed to support that argument, as those who have argued for Maybrick as penman?" Absolutely. Of course, there is a difference between putting forward an argument for Anne as the penwoman and considering Anne as a suspect possibly involved in the forgery. The case for the latter, which has still not been made, it seems to me, (although, contra Peter Wood's assertion, there are people who believe it might be) that case would not have to deal with the handwriting problem if it only posited Anne's "involvement" and did not go as far as Peter Birchwood's original description. But you're correct, I think, that if Keith gave Sue samples of Anne's writing and Sue could not match them with the dairy's, then we do have to look elsewhere for the penperson. But where? All the best, --John (who is wondering whatever became of the plan to have someone qualified examine the "you know what" relics)
Author: John Hacker Monday, 04 February 2002 - 12:38 pm
Caz, There is a slight difference between the comparing the handwriting issues presented by Maybrick and Anne as possible forger. If we are to take the diary content seriously we need to attribute a 1/2 dozen hands to good ole James. In addition, my opinion there is no rational (or even a plausible irrational) reason that someone would disguise their handwriting in their own diary, whereas a forger would certainly have ample reason to do so. That being said, it's certainly a good idea to have verified samples of her writing checked by experts. Keith, Many thanks for the info! "separated the molecules in the ink" doesn't seem very likely to me. It's possible that the addition of sugar would affect the ink in someway, but I don't think it's separating the molecules. Good old unreliable Mike. One day he'll say something that actually checks out as simply being true and I'll probably die from the shock. Again, many thanks. Regards, John Hacker
Author: david rhea Monday, 04 February 2002 - 03:45 pm
Dear John;You have said the best thing so far in this encircling verbosity.There is no reason why the author of the Diary-if it was James Maybrick-to intentionally disguise his handwriting unless you agree with those who say he had a multiple personality problem.But re-evaluation necessessitates this endless discussion.You see to re-evaluate means to encircle the quarry like indians after a wagon trin in the old West ad infinitum!
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 06:53 am
Hi John (H), Point taken about the differences between comparing Maybrick's documented hand with that of a private diary supposedly written by him, and comparing Anne's natural hand with the diary, which a forger would have every reason to write in a disguised one. I wonder if the "you know what" relics (nudge nudge, a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, want to buy some dirty pictures sir?), to which John O alludes in his post, suggest that a disguised hand might have been used in the diary by the person who was kind enough to provide them for those who would unmask him as the foxy forger of the jolly journal? 'Encircling verbosity', David? Re-evaluation is optional reading for everyone. It certainly doesn't 'necessessitate' anything, least of all poring over people's prestidigitative pronouncements here. Love, Caz
Author: ASEGERDAL Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 08:24 am
David Rhea mentions that WT Stead wound up in the pursuit of spiritualism. Yes, he did, as did his friend Annie Besant, the darling of the socialist movement. So did Arthur Conan Doyle. Spiritualism was all the rage at the time, as was the study of ghosts. Annie Besant even wrote a book about ghosts entitled "Thought Forms." Regards, Alastair Segerdal
Author: david rhea Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 09:44 am
That is part of my point.W T Stead was a journalist who avidly took on social causes,but with the common acceptance of spiritualism would not necessarily be averse to a statement from the spirit world.I am speaking about his belief that Kelly was sodomised.Did D'onston give him that information which he believed because of his respect for D'Onston's intellegence or did it come from a seance(I can believe that with the noteriety of the case, the victims were doing a lot of talking)? If D'Onston could influence Stead's stance on the case, then he could also manipulate others involved as well.Inspector Roots, the aspiring private detective Welch who reported the suspect Dr. Davies to the police.D'Onston took an interest in the case that went further than reporting, don't you think?
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 05:10 pm
David Do yourself a favour. If you want to ingratiate yourself with Ivor, go open an 'I love Ivor' strand and discuss D'Onston on it to your heart's content. We discuss Maybrick here. Now to the diary. Sue Iremonger insists (indirectly) that she could tell the handwriting of any person, even if they tried to disguise it. So Anne could disguise hers as much as possible but Sue Iremonger would still catch her out. And don't forget that the diary is written flowingly. The handwriting doesn't look 'contrived' as could be levelled at, say, the 'Dear Boss' letter. Get this: The diary is in Maybrick's 'natural' hand, he just disguised his 'hand' for the letters. And no John, I still haven't decided how much of what PHF says about the letters I agree with. But I've been reading Stewart's book 'Letters from Hell' for the last few nights (Note: Caz, could you please e mail Stewart on my behalf, Outlook isn't working, and tell him that Books Etc in the Trafford Centre listed his book under 'New. Non-fiction'. Silly me! I was looking in the True Crime section. I actually had to ask for the book, a good buy at £20 hardback. Point being that some people might look in True Crime, and not seeing the book then just leave the store) - anyway, the handwriting on the letters that Stewart reproduces seems 'of the time', it doesn't vary widely, and without being an expert I can well believe that one person could have written several of them ...maybe James Maybrick? (shock horror! John Omlor falls off chair! An ellipse! A rhetorical question!) I'm off to pour scorn on Ivor's theories now, to stop his henchmen coming in here. Well David you are welcome in here, if you discuss Maybrick. Regards Peter
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 07:56 pm
Peter, Did you write this seriously, referring to the diary and the Ripper letters: "The diary is in Maybrick's 'natural' hand, he just disguised his 'hand' for the letters." Because we do have well-established, authentic examples of James Maybrick's natural hand (in his own personal letters), and it looks nothing at all like any of the writing anywhere in the diary. Nothing that we know the real James Maybrick wrote, anywhere, looks anything at all like the writing in the diary. And no one, including Sue, has ever said it does. And it's not clear to me what expert you are quoting when you say the writing in the diary doesn't look contrived. (If that's just your own personal opinion, I don't think it can be taken very seriously without evidence.) The utter goofiness about the real James Maybrick writing several of the Ripper letters is so completely without evidence and such nonsensical speculation that it doesn't deserve comment. Honestly, some care and some evidence would be nice at some point. All the best, --John
Author: Ivor Edwards Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 03:25 pm
Peter, Practise what you preach.This thread is about Maybrick and not about Letters from Hell or football for that matter.Stick to the topic and no exuses.If you wander from the topic again I will be back team handed with more henchmen ( as you refer to them) to talk about the only real viable ripper suspect.Lets have a big hand for the one and only Robert Stephenson who is going to knock Maybrick off his perch.You know it makes sense.
Author: Peter Wood Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 06:17 pm
Ivor I can't believe you just stole one of my favourite phrases! I always say 'You know it makes sense'. Strange ... And I like your thinking, but David seemed to be on a mission to turn "Re-Evaluation" into a re evaluation of the whole ripper case, not just the diary, which was my original intention. I'm more than happy to discuss D'Onston and others with you on another strand. The football is just my attempt at being light hearted. I think you were smiling when you wrote your post, and I thank you for that. Give David my regards next time you meet up with him - a couple of Bonio's and a tickle under the chin should keep him happy. John O. "And it's not clear to me what expert you are quoting when you say the writing in the diary doesn't look contrived. Seriously John, why are you asking me this? It should be pretty obvious that Anna Koren is the expert I refer to. But you don't need Anna's opinion, look at the writing yourself, it is fluid, it is natural, it is not contrived. And the examples we have of James Maybrick's handwriting, you have to remember, are only because of the research undertaken by Shirley and Paul and Keith etc. They are still relatively few. Much fewer than, say, the examples we have of Mike's handwriting. Or Anne's. And neither of them matches the diary. But that doesn't bother you, and doesn't stop you putting them up as candidates for the 'forger' You talk of the fictional James Maybrick and the 'real' James Maybrick. I don't mind talking about a fictional forger. But I can't talk about a 'real' forger, because we don't know that such a person exists. So in future the 'forger' will be the 'fictional forger', or ff for short. You believe the diary is a forgery. You have made that clear several times. It is about time you started to show your evidence to prove who the ff is. But you have nothing. You don't have a hand writing match, you don't have a motive, you have nothing. You are stuck with arguing apparent mistakes in Crashaw and the Grand National. 'Mistakes' that I have countered and dealt with and yet you will not take off your blinkers and admit this. Oh, for the day that John and I can agree on something again. We used to get on so well. Regards Peter
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 06:56 pm
Hi Peter, Actually, the diary writing to me looks quite forced and exaggerated in places -- especially in the wild "Sir Jimmay" parts. But this is only my opinion. And I am clearly not qualified to judge this sort of thing. In any case, one thing is clear, if Koren is correct, if this diary is written in the natural hand of its composer, if it is not contrived, then it is surely not likely to have been composed by James Maybrick -- since his natural hand, available to everyone in his personal letters, looks nothing at all like any of the writing anywhere in the diary. No expert has ever been willing to say it does. And whether or not we have any idea who wrote it (and I have never once claimed Mike or Anne held the pen or that their handwriting was anything like the diary's, Peter, I have said in fact, that Mike's account in his sworn confession of him dictating while Anne held the pen is utterly unbelievable -- so please get my position correct) -- whether or not we have any idea who did hold the pen is irrelevant to this question. We can see that it is clearly not written in James Maybrick's natural hand. No expert has ever said or will ever say that it is. You can dance around it all you want, this song never stops playing. And you write: "You believe the diary is a forgery. You have made that clear several times. It is about time you started to show your evidence to prove who the ff is." Peter, your inability to understand the simple rules of logic and argument is sometimes staggering. Given the first two sentences in this citation above, the third one should have read: "It is about time you started to show your evidence to prove it is a forgery." And I and many, many others have done that ad nauseum. Your premises were "You believe the diary is a forgery. You have made that clear several times." They do not say anything about my claiming to know the identities of the forgers. Therefore, neither should your conclusion. But the way you have it, it makes no sense and confuses two separate issues. Yes, I've claimed it is a forgery. I have never claimed I know who the forgers were, therefore I cannot be expected to offer evidence to prove who the forgers are. It's not reasonable. You can't fail to understand this simple logical point. You paragraph cited above is stunningly confused. But perhaps you can clear up this logical mess you have offered. All the best, --John
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 04:15 am
Hi Peter You wrote to John (O): You are stuck with arguing apparent mistakes in Crashaw and the Grand National. 'Mistakes' that I have countered and dealt with and yet you will not take off your blinkers and admit this. You have not countered the 'mistakes'. Or, rather, you have countered them, but it means nothing - not in the sense of the 'diary' being genuine - and the argument is largely pointless. You see, for example, Maybrick and the Prince were not literally a few feet from one another. That�s a fact (or we accept it as a fact until evidence is produced to the contrary). But it isn't necessarily correct to conclude that the diarist made an error when he said they were. As you have shown, albeit perhaps not to John O's satisfaction, is that the diarist may only have used 'a few feet' to convey 'near' in the same sense as I might say �if I�ve told you once, I�ve told you a thousand times� to convey frequency. What you have done is counter John's argument that the 'diary' is a forgery because the diarist didn't know how far Maybrick was from the prince, which Maybrick, if the diarist, would have done. Ergo Maybrick wasn't the diarist and the diary is a forgery. But this doesn't mean that Maybrick was the diarist because 'a few feet' could have been used to convey general closeness by either Maybrick or by the forger. So what you have done is to provide an explanation for why Maybrick might have written 'a few feet'. And what you have done is perfectly legitimate.Historians do it all the time because genuine historical documents contain material that is difficult to interpret in light of the accepted historical record or which actually contradicts the historical record, and historians devote time and effort to providing explanations for these anomalies. Such theorising keeps the academic presses in business! And you are doing nothing different. Except that the �diary� isn�t generally accepted as being genuine. And this is the difficulty you have to surmount. It's difficult because it's difficult to prove that anything is genuine. No matter how authentic a painting or a piece of furniture or a manuscript might look, it could still be a very good forgery. So you can't prove something genuine. What you can do, though, is prove something is a forgery. Experts can look for the tell-tale signs of forgery and if they find them they can declare that the object is a fake. If they don't find them, they can declare that the object is probably genuine. And that's where the 'diary' is genuine argument hits a brick wall. The �diary� has not passed those tests. The handwriting doesn�t match Maybrick�s or match documents the diarist claims Maybrick wrote. The ink appears to contain a chemical that doesn�t appear to have been used in ink manufacture prior to the 1960s. The provenance is rotten. There is no evidence at all that the �diary� or anything like it was ever owned by James Maybrick. The handwriting looks like it belongs to someone schooled in the 1920s/30s. The handwriting bears marks that indicates that the author tried to make it look Victorian. The entries look as if they were written in batches, not day by day. And so on and so on. If you want to prove that the 'diary' is genuine then these are the objections you are going to have to overcome and to which you should be giving your attention. John O too, I think.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 04:36 am
Hi All, I think perhaps Peter is getting a wee bit frustrated here. I can understand John's frustration too but maybe we misunderstand Peter's a bit. My frustration concerns the fact that it really should have been very easy, with the small group of modern players, or those implicated because of tenuous links (like witnessing a will back in 1979 in a signature that looks a bit like the 'contrived' diary writing), for the combined might of the researchers, debunkers, police and what have you, to have wrapped this whole thing up years ago in brown paper tied with string. Instead we are still farting about like gooduns, hitting one another over the head with the Sphere book and the sacred Kane relics (or we would be if anyone could get access), with no obvious forger in sight, and with no one, directly involved, or knowing who was, coming forward to sell their story or their memoirs, or giving the game away (perhaps because of a falling out - understandable with Mike playing fast and loose with the money-making machine the way he has). Mike is the only person who has tried, and appears to have had very strong personal reasons for trying, yet has failed to prove his own involvement in the diary's production. The investigators haven't been stringing this along to keep the diary afloat. They have tried and tried to get Mike to give a believable account that can be supported. And if we can't pin this thing on anyone alive, don't we at some point (maybe well into the future, but at some point) have to consider that it might be because no one alive now knows anything? RJ, for one, seems unable to let go of the idea that Mike knows the diary is a modern fake, although he now believes Anne had nothing to do with it. (Even the private letter from Mike to Anne in 1996 telling her he knows she wrote it doesn't give him pause.) Yet only two years ago everyone was happy to believe Mike and Anne wrote this thing between them for money - end of story. Karoline Leach even went as far as concluding this was beyond reasonable doubt. We've come a long way since then. And there is still the watch, teasing us with its ticking, and telling us that time will reveal all. I can almost hear Albert whispering patience is a virtue. Love, Caz
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 08:48 am
Hi Caz, I like this paragraph: "Instead we are still farting about like gooduns, hitting one another over the head with the Sphere book and the sacred Kane relics (or we would be if anyone could get access), with no obvious forger in sight, and with no one, directly involved, or knowing who was, coming forward to sell their story or their memoirs, or giving the game away (perhaps because of a falling out - understandable with Mike playing fast and loose with the money-making machine the way he has)." But I'm not as surprised about this as you are. Sure, there was plenty of evidence to suggest this diary was a forgery, just from reading it. And then when you add the lack of provenance and the handwriting problems and all the other things Paul lists in his post above, things became pretty clear regarding the lack of any serious claim for authenticity. But that's quite a different thing from figuring out who, then, forged this book. And the latter problem seems to me, by its very nature, much more difficult, since it is asking for a very precise solution rather than a general one. And if the people involve all behave themselves (a big "if," as you correctly point out) and if the official authorities are not all that interested in pursuing the thing (and they don't seem to be, they pulled out very early in the case), then it all gets left to armchair detectives and curious readers like ourselves, who have very little actual weight and no leverage to speak of and who are left for the most part simply theorizing and asking questions. Without the force of the law behind us, or the threats that accompany it, and without any of the resources necessary for a real criminal investigation at our disposal, it's not that surprising to me at all that we are still dancing our macabre dance around here. But none of this is reason to conclude that none of our forgers are still alive. Our inability to make our case stick or even to come up with a complete list of suspects is not necessarily evidence that the right suspects are no longer around. It could just be evidence of our own inadequacies as investigators and the limitations of our own power and resources. And then there's the fact that some of our suspects (and perhaps some of our readers, too) behave in demonstrably irrational ways. All the best, --John PS: Paul, I'm not getting back into the race-scene question and historical accuracy. I seem to have come to some sort of agreement with Caz about it over on the other board. I still don't think the phrases "less than a few feet" and "a walk up the racecourse" are properly interchangeable or likely to be used for the same situation or that "less than a few feet" can be seen as being in any way historically accurate or even a likely exaggeration by the real James in his own personal diary. But I agree with much of what you wrote to Peter, of course, and thank you for trying to explain it to him. PPS: Caz, as an example of our limitations -- I would really like to know who those those five identical and sequential payments of 1000 pounds each went to from Mike, since they went out right after he got over 8800 pounds of diary money put into his account. Peter Birchwood has mentioned them. The diary money goes into Mike's account on May 13, 1994. Mike, via that same account, then sends exactly 1000 pounds out to someone on May 17, then again two days later on May 19, then again four days later on May 23, then again two days later on May 25, then again two days later on May 27. 5000 pounds in five sequential payments of exactly 1000 pounds each, separated by between two and four days each. Obviously, we can't issue any order for the complete, personal financial records of the guy, we have no power. Perhaps Mike was just paying off a credit card bill (but why in sequential payments over a few days like this?) If so, there'd be a record. Or perhaps he was paying off something or someone else and thought a single payment of 5000 pounds would look worse than this series. It would be useful to know who got this money.
Author: david rhea Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 10:57 am
Anne says that her father heard of the Diary in 1943.It was in a suitcase left with him for safekeeping.Anne says that she discovered it in 1968 rummaging through a closet.She gave it to her father to pack away.Later she decides to help her husband by giving him a base for a novel.Up until then it was jammed behind the cupboard, because she didn't like having it in the house.She says 'I never was interested or cared who Jack the Ripper was nor has my father .Though she had no interest she wanted to protect her father and his family and secreted the Diary behind the cupboard.I have heard about Jack the Ripper most of my life, and cannot believe that the name JTR would at least not raise an eyebrow.Anne's father was a literate military man but it didn't raise his eyebrow.They don't care about it but still find the need for secrecy, until a good Samaritan act brings it to the fore.After that though all hell breaks loose-Everybody knows about Jack the Ripper and much research is begun because of this spectacular find.In the mean time most of the parties to this Diary are dead.Do you people actually believe this? This scenario does not make sense.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 10:59 am
Hi John, I agree about Mike's money and how useful it would be to know who got it and why. I guess he'd have taken at least some of it for himself as well, considering he was so overdrawn before the £8800 arrived, and the final £1000 payment Peter tells us about appears to have sent him back into the red. I don't know if he ever had a credit card though, or how long he could have kept one for. Love, Caz
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 11:01 am
For the attention of Peter Birchwood. Dear Peter, I have a message for Melvin Harris, dictated to me just now by Keith Skinner, who is currently at the William Brown Central Library in Liverpool. I�d be very grateful if you could kindly ensure that Melvin gets it. Thanks. Love, Caz
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 11:02 am
From Keith Skinner To Melvin Harris Please provide the date of your conversation and the name of the librarian who told you that the Sphere book had been withdrawn from the library shelves. There are three hardback copies of the book here, one published in 1970, two published in 1986 and, according to my enquiries, none of these books have ever been withdrawn or �stacked�. I�m sure this conflict of information can be swiftly resolved by your own professional documented notes.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 11:15 am
Hi David, 'In the mean time most of the parties to this Diary are dead.' Sorry, what do you mean by 'most'? Yes, Billy Graham is dead. He died shortly after Anne asked him to talk to Feldy to support her story. Tony Devereux died in 1991, before the diary emerged, and we don't know if he was ever a party to it. Who else did you have in mind, apart from Maybrick of course? Mike, Anne and the suspected penman are still kicking around. We don't know if there was a separate composer or if he/she is still alive. Not a lot in it, I'd say. Love, Caz
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 11:18 am
Caz--If you are in contact with Keith, could you ask him to see if it is possible to know what Ripper/Maybrick books the Liverpool Library had in 1990 or so? Mike B. claims to have spent a year & a half researching all he could find. But Paul Begg & others have remarked that he seemed to have very little command of the subject(s). It seems odd to me, for instance, that Mike had never heard of Bernard Ryan or Martin Fido by the time the Maybrick research was under way[ie., by Feldman and Harrison] RP
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 11:22 am
PS. "On March 22 1998 I wrote to Janet Graham at the Liverpool Library "in the pursuit of exact information" to double check the existence of the Sphere books in the library. * * * I was told that all the volumes were in fact there - not on the shelves but in their repository upstairs." --Shirley Harrison, 6 July, 2000
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 11:37 am
Hi Caz, Well, Mike did use over 3500 of the 8800 pounds for himself and his own financial affairs, apparently. As I understand it, before the diary money went into his account, he was about 3250 pounds overdrawn. The added diary money was credited to his account and thereby put him 5600 to the good and erased his deficit. Then, out of the 5600 he had left after erasing his deficit, he paid 5000 pounds to someone in a series of five exactly 1000 pound payments each separated by only two to four days. Unfortunately, he also spent a bit of money on other things, and that left him, at the end of his sequential payments, about 280 pounds back overdrawn. But he did manage to go from being over 3000 pounds overdrawn to being only about 280 pounds overdrawn and he did manage to make those five 1000 pound payments (they must have been pretty important and very pressing if he had to deliver them all in such short order, even despite running out of money himself). And the fact that they are each for exactly 1000 pounds suggests that they are not separate and different bills covering separate debts or accounts -- unless he had five different charge cards and was paying precisely 1000 pounds on each, but then why the spread of two to four days between payments? No, this seems too unlikely, the payments seem to have been for something else and they needed to be immediate, apparently, even if it meant going back into debt. Curious, to say the least. But perhaps there is still a perfectly innocent explanation that we have not been able to imagine. All the best, --John
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 11:43 am
Hi John Please, I don�t want you get back into the racecourse question. God forbid. I was simply trying in a sadly deftless way to point out that Peter had provided an (�an�, not necessarily good or plausible) alternative explanation to the �a few feet� question, but that even if it was accepted it wouldn�t make any difference because it could have been a �mistake� by the forger as much as by Maybrick. It therefore proved nothing. And far from seeking in any way to re-open that particular debate � or any other based on the supposed genuiness of the �diary� � I was hoping that Peter would pick up on the fact that if he wants to prove the �diary� genuine, he should first overcome the reasons why it so obviously looks like a forgery. And as Caz has so simply pointed out, one way Peter has of bringing those questions into a starker relief would be to establish who the forger wasn�t, if he can � i.e., if it wasn�t Mike, was it Anne? If it wasn�t Anne, is Anne�s �in my family for years� story true? If it isn�t, did Mike really get the book from Tony Devereux? Was. Tony Devereux the forger? And so on. On the question of the money paid out by Mike, the regularity of amount and of withdrawal is interesting, but the money need not have been paid to somebody else, in the sense of being a payoff to some bloke wearing dark glasses and a mac and smoking a Sobrani. Indeed, if Mike did owe money to a Mr. Big the Forger, why wouldn�t he have written out a cheque for the full amount? Why would he or anyone else suppose that anyone would check Mike�s bank statements or, indeed, have access to them? However, it Mike did not at that time have a cheque guarantee card or had not been allocated a cashpoint pin number, then his only means of accessing his money would have been visiting his branch of the bank and writing out a cheque paid to �cash� and being given the money in crisp twenties. He would then have paid outstanding bills such as gas, electricity, mortgage and so on with cash. It�s still a hell of a lot of money to have got through, of course.
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 01:07 pm
Hi Paul, Thanks. Yes, of course, who the forger was and/or wasn't is a different though obviously related problem from the question of whether or not the book is a forgery. And there remains the fair possibility that we have not met nor heard of this book's creator(s) yet. So even if we were able somehow to finally eliminate Mike and Anne and Tony as composers and as penpeople, that would still not be an argument in favor of the diary's authenticity. It would only be a small bit of progress towards identifying the possible forgers. But we seem to agree about this. Now let's play Woodward and Bernstein, just for fun, and "follow the money." You ask a series of questions: "Indeed, if Mike did owe money to a Mr. Big the Forger, why wouldn�t he have written out a cheque for the full amount?" I was wondering this myself. Perhaps the payments were to separate people (there being more than one who needed to be paid). Or, and this bit of admitted speculation I find even more consistent with Mike's demonstrably half-assed thought processes, perhaps Mike somehow figured that five sequential payments of 1000 pounds with only two to four days between each of them would not look quite as suspicious or alarming as one single payment of 5000 pounds, if anyone ever checked. Which brings us to your next question: "Why would he or anyone else suppose that anyone would check Mike�s bank statements or, indeed, have access to them?" Well, I don't know, but I would think that once people became suspicious about the authenticity of the diary (and weren't they bound to?), the first logical thing to do would be to check and see who was making money off the thing and what they were doing with that money. I would think that this was where any investigation was destined to start. So assuming Mike was making some sort of payments to an unnamed partner or partners, surely he'd be at least a little sensitive to the paper trail he was leaving behind, in case an investigation ever started. And the fact that he does not seem to have been all that thorough or professional about covering his tracks might indicate that he was not paying off anyone in any suspicious way, or it might indicate that he just wasn't very good at what he was doing. (This always seems to be the problem when trying to read Mike, isn't it?) In any case, five payments of exactly 1000 pounds each in such short order despite not even having enough money himself to cover the last one signals to me that these were important and pressing matters to him. You then make this excellent point: "However, if Mike did not at that time have a cheque guarantee card or had not been allocated a cashpoint pin number, then his only means of accessing his money would have been visiting his branch of the bank and writing out a cheque paid to �cash� and being given the money in crisp twenties. He would then have paid outstanding bills such as gas, electricity, mortgage and so on with cash. It�s still a hell of a lot of money to have got through, of course." Yes, that's true. And I had not thought until now that these might be cash withdrawals that Mike was using to pay his own bills. But that raises the question again of why he wouldn't just take the total sum out all at once, but instead deliberately place the payments/withdrawals at these sorts of intervals. If he just needed the five grand for himself, why not just go get it with one check? And why such regular and short intervals at that? I'd be very interested to know the days of the week for the following dates in 1994: May 13, May 17, May 19, May 23, May 25, May 27. Can someone tell me where the weekends fell in those dates that year? Also, on the day of the first 1000 pound pay-out, there was another check that same day for 500 pounds exactly. And I'm not sure, but I believe it appears that the 1000 pound payments were written on check numbers 232, 234, 236, 238, and 239. And yet Mike still need to write a check for 48 pounds on number 237. Make of these sequences what you will. I would also like to know if there was any time interval between the dates the checks were written and the dates they were cashed. But we have no access to a judge and we certainly have no way to get any sort of court order for such records and therefore we may never know. And this might be an example of why we're still here ten years later. So of course, there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation for Mike "going through" 5000 pounds exactly in about two weeks, right after getting his diary money. Or Mike might have had Arthur Anderson as his accountants. All the best, --John
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 02:48 pm
Well, I just hope all that loverly Maybrick money isn't in Allied Irish Banks (AIB), as a smart boy who lived not three miles from where I am domiciled in Baltimore, an employee of Allfirst Bank, a subsidiary of AIB headquartered here in this city, and which happens to be my bank, by Gawd, just diddled AIB out of $750 million! I am sweating on the top line waiting for developments to see if it will effect my bank account and the second mortgage on our apartment, which is also with Allfirst..... Have no fear, attendees of the upcoming convention to be held April 19-21 in Baltimore, the funds for the 2002 Ripper Weekend to be held here are not in Allfirst Bank! Chris
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 03:06 pm
Hi Chris, That sucks. Hope it all turns out OK and FDIC covered and all that sort of thing. Hello everyone, Thanks to an enterprising reader (you know who you are), I have learned the following concerning the days of the week for Mike's checks. The check containing the diary money went into his bank on a Friday, the 13th. (Perfect, huh?) Mike then wrote his 1000 pound checks in an interesting sequence. The first two were written on the Tuesday and Thursday of the next week. And the next three were written on the Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of the week after that. So he gets the big check on Friday. Writes a first check for a grand on Tuesday (after the weekend), then another one on Thursday, then sits out the weekend and writes another check for a grand on Monday, then again on Wednesday, and then again on Friday of the week after that. I don't know what this suggests to anyone, but I thought I'd add it to the mix. All the best, --John PS: I don't suppose Monday, May 16th was a bank holiday -- or perhaps the check didn't clear into his account until Monday and he couldn't write the first one until Tuesday. In any case, he certainly seems to have wasted little time in writing the first check once the money was available or writing the four subsequent checks after that. The M-W-F pattern of the second week is fascinating to me. It sure doesn't seem like he's writing all these checks just for his own use.
Author: Peter Wood Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 06:09 pm
Hiya John "In any case, one thing is clear, if Koren is correct, if this diary is written in the natural hand of its composer, if it is not contrived, then it is surely not likely to have been composed by James Maybrick -- since his natural hand, available to everyone in his personal letters, looks nothing at all like any of the writing anywhere in the diary. No expert has ever been willing to say it does". Personal letters, John? Don't you mean his business letters? Hardly likely then to have been his 'natural' hand ... Regards Peter
Author: Peter Wood Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 06:27 pm
Hi Paul Let's take this step by step: The handwriting doesn�t match Maybrick�s or match documents the diarist claims Maybrick wrote. And to a lesser mortal than myself that would be a problem. But the handwriting in one of Maybrick's letters clearly matches the handwriting in the Galashiels letter, the very same letter that Bill Waddell says is 'one and the same' with Maybrick's will. I would say that is too much of a coincidence. The ink appears to contain a chemical that doesn�t appear to have been used in ink manufacture prior to the 1960s. I thought we were going to be responsible. You know the answer to this one Paul. Firstly, the ink hasn't been proven to contain Chloroacetamide. Secondly, if it does then it is in nowhere near the correct quantities it would need to be if the ink were diamine. Thirdly, Robert Smith will tell you that Chloroacetamide was available for commercial use well before 1888. The provenance is rotten. There is no evidence at all that the �diary� or anything like it was ever owned by James Maybrick. And what would make the provenance good? Perhaps if the diary had been handed down via the family of a high court judge? Or a cabinet minister? The diary has come down through a working class family in Liverpool. I tend to believe Anne and Billy. So does Keith. And I'm at a loss to understand what evidence could prove that the diary was owned by Maybrick. A receipt from the shop where he bought it? A photograph of James holding it? What? The handwriting looks like it belongs to someone schooled in the 1920s/30s. Even if that were true it still puts the composition closer to 1888 than 1988 and causes major headaches for anyone who wants to believe that OCIOD came from the sphere guide. But sadly this point is of no consequence because it was only one person's discredited opinion. Still, nice try. The handwriting bears marks that indicates that the author tried to make it look Victorian. This is only true if you are already looking at it from the viewpoint that the diary is a forgery. You see those marks precisely because you are looking for them. PHF, Shirley, Me, have a handwriting expert who states that the writing is fluid, that the diary was written as it was thought and that the handwriting is NOT contrived. The entries look as if they were written in batches, not day by day. I've never quite understood how you prove something like that. After all, it is now impossible to discern pen pressure upon the paper, and you'd expect the handwriting to be the same from one page to another. And of course some entries were written one after the other. Big deal. And so on and so on. Ditto. Thanks Paul. It's been fun. Regards Peter.
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 07:12 pm
Peter, I have no idea why you think James Maybrick would not have written the letters from the SS Baltic in his own natural hand. But I'm going to pass right over that one and all the nonsense you spout to Paul about Bill Wadell (who does not believe that Maybrick wrote this book in any case) and the stupid Galasheils letter (none of which addresses his point in any way, which is that the diary is not written in handwriting that looks anything like any of James Maybrick's -- or that looks anything like the stupid Galasheils letter for that matter -- rendering your point in response stunningly irrelevant). I'm going to pass over all the other nonsense and non-responses and non-evidence you offer up, because I just want to take the time to read one of your gems closely. It's a darling passage and it delights me. And I think it reveals a habit you might have of writing first and thinking later. Paul wrote: "The handwriting looks like it belongs to someone schooled in the 1920s/30s." And you responded: "Even if that were true it still puts the composition closer to 1888 than 1988 and causes major headaches for anyone who wants to believe that OCIOD came from the sphere guide." Peter! If that were true (your premise here, not mine) this conclusion of yours is incomprehensible. If that were true (your premise here, not mine), then the writer was schooled in the 1920's or 30's. How could someone schooled in the 1920's or 30's have written a book in 1888? The premise does not say when the book was written, it says when the writer was schooled. A writer schooled in the 20's or 30's would be old in the 1980's, yes, but they might at least still be alive. On the other hand, they could not possibly have been writing the diary in 1888 if they were schooled in the 20's or 30's. If this premise is true (your opening phrase, remember), the diary must be a forgery. If the premise is true, it doesn't place the composition "closer to 1888 than 1988." It makes composition in 1888 impossible, in fact. It completely rules out composition in 1888. Paul's sentence says nothing about the time of composition, it speaks only to the period the composers went to school. And if they went to school in the 1920's or 30's, then there is simply no way they wrote this book in 1888 and your position is simply impossible, no matter how unlikely this would also make the modern forgery theory. Do you not see this? Surely, you do. As for the rest, if everyone will take the time to read carefully every paragraph Peter has just written above, they will see that there is not a single one which offers us any reliable evidence at all of any sort that even suggests that this book is linked in any way to the real James Maybrick or even to the proper century. That should tell you something. I get the sense that it already has. All the best, --John
Author: Guy Hatton Friday, 08 February 2002 - 06:02 am
John - A little more about those dates (if it's any use to you). 1.) Monday May 16 1994 was not a Bank Holiday. 2.) A cheque paid in on the Friday (May 13) would not normally be expected to clear for three clear working days - hence the money would probably not show up until the following Thursday (I don't think Saturday would count as a working day in this context, although the bank's main branches would be open for business on the Saturday morning). 3.) Despite this, Mike would obviously feel confident that the funds would be available in his account by the time the cheque written on the Tuesday was processed. Cheers Guy
Author: John Omlor Friday, 08 February 2002 - 06:59 am
Thanks Guy, Does it still really take three days? Geez. I guess it did in '94. I haven't used a real bank for years, doing everything on line with Merrill Lynch and making deposits at their office which go in immediately. I had forgotten how things used to be. But I'm sure you're right. Once Mike knew the money was there, writing the check on Tuesday would have been no problem for him. Heck, even if he wasn't sure it was there, this apparently wouldn't have been a problem -- before the check arrived, remember, he was over 3000 pounds overdrawn (do banks really let you do this these days), so he didn't seem too troubled by writing a check without money in his account. So the money goes in on Friday and by Tuesday Mike writes his first 1000 pound check, then another on Thursday, and after the weekend he writes another on Monday, another one on Wednesday, and a fifth one on Friday. Each one for exactly 1000 pounds. The he's out of money again -- even slightly overdrawn (250 pounds or so). It's all gone in two weeks. No wonder Mike gets angry when he is later told, in December of that year (1994), that there is no more money for him because it all must go to pay expenses. So Mike sees his 8000 pound payment of May vanish in only two weeks. By the end of May, 1994, he's broke again. Now then, can someone remind me -- when did Mike "confess" to Brough? Wasn't in in June of 1994? The 25th, I think. Remember? Mike only had days to live. Just trying to get all the dates clear. More later. All the best, --John
Author: Guy Hatton Friday, 08 February 2002 - 08:41 am
John - They still sometimes specify three or even four days - and yet at other times they are touting 'real-time banking' (Lloyds have recently introduced this, for instance). Still seems to take a couple of days for a debit card payment to show up, though... Cheers Guy
Author: Peter Wood Friday, 08 February 2002 - 10:59 am
Hi John Yep, you're kinda right there on the issue of someone who was schooled in the 1920's or 1930's. If we accept that then of course the diary could not have been written in 1888. But I don't agree with the premise (are you surprised?) at all. I guess my initial response to what Paul wrote was to think that handwriting may not have changed much from the late 1880's to the early 1920's. A span of just over 30 years. But from 1920's to late 1980's early 1990's is a span of 70 years and handwriting would have changed a lot. I still think that speaks in favour of the diary, or rather it would do if I accepted it as evidence. On another point you are quite right. I haven't shown that the writing in the diary looks like James' missives or his will or the JTR letters. But I have clearly and responsibly set out my opinion that James Maybrick wrote the Galashiel's letter and whilst Bill Waddell may not believe that James Maybrick wrote the diary he has set forward his opinion that James' writing in his will is 'one and the same' with the Galashiel's letter. That is too much to hope for. That is too much of a coincidence. There is a logical step here: James' handwriting in his letter that PHF produces AND in his will, matches the Galashiels letter. The Galashiels letter is purporting to come from JTR. A diary appears purporting to have been written by JM claiming to be JTR. Now, even you must see the connection. I claim that James' business letters wouldn't have been in his natural hand because that's the way things are. We write differently to business acquaintances than we would to friends - or even in our diaries. Gotta go. Cheers Peter
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Friday, 08 February 2002 - 05:04 pm
TO CUT A LONG STORY SHORT "Poor Mrs Maybrick? Uncle, that woman was a victim of barbarism. How can you be so mild about it? She was condemned to death for poisoning her husband. The Crown had not begun to prove she was a killer - they did'nt even establish that Maybrick had died from poison. He was worse than the Ripper! The jury was bigoted and the judge was mad. She rotted in prison for fifteen years. Not because she was a murderess but because she had taken a lover." Page 41. Requiem at Rogano. Stephen Knight.1979 ...an unnerving maelstrom of reincarnation, possession and ancient prophecy... YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Author: John Omlor Friday, 08 February 2002 - 06:03 pm
Peter writes: "I claim that James' business letters wouldn't have been in his natural hand because that's the way things are. We write differently to business acquaintances than we would to friends - or even in our diaries." Who, we? We do? Is there any real evidence at all for this? Is there any evidence that would allow us to think that the letters from the ship that we know the real James wrote weren't in his natural hand? No. And the writing in the diary looks nothing at all like anything we have that the real James ever wrote. Why? Perhaps because it's not in his handwriting. In fact, I think that is what this sentence means. That seems pretty clear and simple. And once again Peter, Bill Wadell is not in any way, shape, of form a qualified handwriting expert. He is a retired traffic policeman who went on to be a museum curator. He has no training nor expertise in handwriting whatsoever. And his initial reaction about the Maybrick will (which part of it, by the way?) and the stupid Galahseil's letter tells us nothing at all about who wrote the diary (since it is in an utterly different hand) and nothing of evidentiary value about either James Maybrick or the Galasheil's letter, since Bill is certainly no more a qualified expert than Stewart Evans or Keith Skinner or any one of a number of authorities on the crimes and the letters, none of whom think that James Maybrick's writing matches any of the Ripper letters. Of course, their opinion is not evidence either, since they are not qualified, just as Bill is not qualified to make such a pronouncement as in any way reliable evidence of anything. And frankly, I believe he'd admit that and I'm not at all sure at how he'd react to your using him this way in this sort of argument. Perhaps I will write and ask him. The simple fact is that there is no reason whatsoever and never has been, ever, to think that the handwriting in the diary is the real James Maybrick's. And the MPD goofiness and the "we all use different handwritings all the time" excuse and all the other Feldmaniacal dances performed to get around this problem all fail miserably. That is why no reputable handwriting expert has ever said or will ever say that the real James Maybrick wrote this diary. That is where the real authority in such matters resides, and that is fairly convincing as evidence. There is no reason at all to even suspect that this diary is written in the real James Maybrick's handwriting. And I think everyone knows that. And finally, as you admit yourself, if the writer was schooled in the 20th century, then that can't possibly "speak in favor of the diary," since it claims to have been written in the 19th. The diary can only have been written after the writers were schooled, Peter. And so if the writers were schooled in the 20's or 30's then the diary could only have been written after that. And no one has ever offered a single piece of evidence of any sort, no handwriting evidence, no scientific evidence, no textual evidence at all, that is was written before that. Perhaps this can lead us to conclude it wasn't. Or does that make too much sense? --John PS: And this doesn't even begin to mention all the other evidence against the case for authenticity, which only builds upon these difficulties.
Author: david rhea Friday, 08 February 2002 - 06:47 pm
You may be on to something here.James Maybrick never wrote in the same style at any time. The only man on earth who could do this.He is a prodigy of expertise in writing and needs to be in the Guiness Book of Records.
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Saturday, 09 February 2002 - 05:24 am
Given that the Crashaw quote MAY be the "smoking gun" it's worth commenting (again!) that all of the participants in the case appear to have been raised as Catholic. Not perhaps too surprising in a city like Liverpool but could perhaps a long-dead schoolteacher have been a Crashaw reader whose words may have stuck in the head of a pupil to bring fruit years later? Of course this doesn't address the major problem of the Sphere book, but one of the things that still could be done would be to research the backgrounds of our characters more closely. John: The bank account situation is intriguing especially if you understand what a lot of money £1,000 was in 1993. I also mentioned something about an accomodating bank manager and I am sure that someone can confirm how hard it was to get any sort of an overdraft from a High St. Bank at that time. Shirley has mentioned that Mike bought someone a car for £5,000 which does not agree with my information which mentions a £500 car - a sum which seems more likely. Even if the purchase was for the higher amount, it would be incredible to suggest that it be paid in five equal payments over a three-week period. Shirley did ask me if they were cash payments and I can't answer that as although they appear on the statement as being associated with separate cheques, I can't tell if those cheques were made payable to cash. It's just possible that there may have been a Bank-limit on how much Mike could withdraw in cash per day and as he, for some reason did not want to give someone a £5,000 cheque and couldn't withdraw so much in one day he did it over a period; so much per day. However this is just speculating. I can say that there is a separate standing order payment for his mortgage and other much smaller cheques that could be for utilities.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 09 February 2002 - 05:44 am
Hi Peter May I ask your source for this information? Didn't the source observe the payments and ask Mike what they were for? Cheers Paul