|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 5, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through May 5, 2000
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 03 May 2000 - 06:26 pm |        | G'day,
Yes yes Christopher, you're 100% RIGHT!
I had the bloody book by my side, as I typed and must have just read the word: 'Final'. It was near my bedtime!
I'll try again: Page 309 of Paul H. Feldman's book: 'The Final Chapter'!
Sorry to everyone who tried to find the page and sorry to Mr Feldman!
Leanne! |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 03 May 2000 - 07:04 pm | | MUCH NOISE: LITTLE CONTENT.
Mark Goeder states that he respects me as a writer. But he hasn't even read my writings and that makes his words hypocritical. No one who has read my writings on the Internet could go on repeating old, tiresome arguments that have long been demolished.
Of the Diary he tells us that "Whoever wrote it must of (sic) had first hand knowledge of the personal life of Maybrick and the rest of the family." Now if he had bothered to read my analyses on screen he would have discovered that EVERY Ripper fact and fallacy in the Diary (bar two) can be found in Underwood's book of 1987. The other two bits are in Fido's book. And he would have discovered that EVERY piece of Maybrick information (including the composer boob) can be found in Ryan's Penguin paperback. No inside knowledge needed. No hard, complex research called for. No giant brains were ever involved in the exercise. It was all laid out, in easy-to-read pages.
He then makes the incredible claim that Maybrick "...called himself Lord Jim." Well he didn't. Neither did he call himself "Sir Jim or Sir James." I have dealt with this more than once (see my recent OPEN LETTER TO PROF. RUBINSTEIN) so there is no excuse for repeating such nonsense.
As for his meanderings about Kelly's heart, he ignores the fact that the Diary records that "I regret that I did not take any of it away with me..." But the fact that the heart had been cut out is recorded TWICE in Underwood's book. Equally the breasts on the table are placed there, not because "he had NO LIGHT" but because Underwood's book states that they were! If Goeder had bothered to read he would have known that.
The "tin matchbox empty" entry in the Diary is, of course, just another proof of the modern fakery involved. It is not first-hand knowledge, as Goeder imagines. The language is not the English of everyday speech or thought. It is not the language of recall, or reportage. It is the stiff language of an inventory. And that inventory was drawn up by an officer of the City of London Police. The Diary fakers boobed by directly quoting those words, which could never have been known to the real killer. And they boobed even further in listing the other possessions of Eddowes; they used A SEQUENCE that is found only in that police inventory. That sequence is a purely arbitrary one, devised by the man who compiled the inventory. The real killer would never have known this: but the hoaxers found it in Fido's book and used it without thought.
His remarks on the ink-tests show that he does not understand the subject. He gets his facts wrong and fails to grasp the motive for the tests. Yet it's all there on screen. So my advice to this time-waster is to go through all my technical reports and analyses. Then read the books listed there. Then come back, wiser. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 03 May 2000 - 09:40 pm | | G'day people,
OK, if the Diary is a modern forgery, who thought to link James Maybrick with Jack the Ripper and Why? If someone did it for financial gain, why didn't they chose a known suspect?
Leanne! |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 12:09 am | | Hello Leanne:
I would say that James Maybrick was chosen because he was a known Victorian, not famous, but someone who had been a shadow figure in a famous murder trial, the murder trial of his wife Florence Maybrick. He was conveniently dead in May 1889, which explained the end of the murder series. He had an addiction that might explain his being "off his head" enough to carry out the murders. That a Liverpool man was chosen to my mind almost betokens that the forger was a Liverpudlian. I might be wrong about that, but that is my presumption. There is also the resonance of the names "James Maybrick" and "Jack the Ripper," with the hard "k" sound apparent both in "Jack" and "Maybrick." "Jack" is not a natural short form for "James" as is "Jim" -- rather "Jack" is short for "John". . . this reveals another stretch in the Maybrick story, although as just indicated there is the element of the sound of the surname that serves here. The Maybrick story provides a convenient jumping off point for the Jack the Ripper story, whether true or not, Jack is suddenly thrust into a domestic drama in a way that he has not been previously. Who knows about Prince Albert Victor's domestic circumstances? Druitt? Gull? Kosminski? As far fetched as the revenge thesis might be, Jack is given flesh and a charged meaning for his bloody deeds.
Chris George |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 03:42 am | | Hi Leanne,
Read my post in the archive thread, Thursday, April 27, 2000 - 05:31 am.
There are 3 options when having a suspect: an already known suspect, a known person of that period but wasn't a suspect until now, an unknown person of that period that nobody ever heard of. Which of the three possibilities would get the least resistance of the majority (of public)? Yes, a known person without being suspect before. Something like Caz coming up with a murder-diary of Weedon (Just a joke Caz! Because you didn't, I'm still very interested in any result of your research of him.)
Jill |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 04:00 am | | Hi All,
If you notice, in the diary, the writer often lists his thoughts first to help him compose his little rhymes, then strikes through those which he doesn’t think he can use.
The list of try-outs in which we find the ‘tin match box empty’ (no comma) reads as follows:
Sir Jim,
tin match box empty
cigarette case (struck through)
make haste ( ditto )
my shiny knife ( ditto )
the whores knife ( ditto )
first whore no good
So we could compare his use of ‘tin match box empty’ with ‘first whore no good’, since he presumably didn’t see on the inventory: first whore, no good. :-)
His full thoughts may have read:
The tin match box was empty
The first whore was no good
Then he turned his try-outs into the finished verse:
One whore no good
decided Sir Jim strike another.
I showed no fright, and indeed no light,
damn it, the tin box was empty
There, it helps if one reads the whole thing in its proper context.
Right, time for a little quiz. There was a cartoon published at the time of Florie Maybrick’s trial, depicting Florie and Jack the Ripper with the Home Secretary in between. What was it called, where did it appear, and whose work was it? And could this have helped inspire our forger to try out his little game?
One lifeline allowed, you may phone fifty of the audience. (My daughter thought that one up.)
Answers on a saucy postcard please.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 04:14 am | | Sorry Jill,
Our paths just crossed!
Weedon's own Diary (of a Nobody) finished on 11th May 1889 (the day Maybrick died), and mentioned a 'double event' in the February 9th edition of Punch.
His autobiography tells us how Tottie Faye tried to blackmail him, and he mentions at one point a 'Marquis of Ripping'. His motto is 'Nothing matters'.
He could distinguish a Whitechapel accent and once produced a play at The Pavilion Theatre, but there is nothing to suggest he had any more sinister designs on the good folk of Whitechapel. :-)
Thanks for your interest, much appreciated.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Mark Goeder
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 04:34 am | | JUST FOR MELVIN,
Gee Harris, this was just about the kind of reaction anyone could have expected from a "writer" who has still achieved NOTHING YET in proving the diary to be a hoax.
You seem to have a bad temper too!
Did I say something wrong Melvin?
I mean, come on ,I did say I respect you as a writer but your last temper tantrum leaves much to be desired.
You shoot too quick.
I have read your messages and your feeble attempts in trying to prove the diary a fake.
I read your bokk " Jack the Ripper ,Blutige Wahrheit" in german too.
YOU have to ask a few questions first before firing away at something you dont know.
Anyway Harris, after reading you post I must say I find it hard to respect anyone who cant and wont accept what other people may think.
After reading your post, my believe in the diary has only been strengthened.
1. Your remarks about the missing heart:
Maybick KNEW about the missing heart and that stands as fact.It didnt mean that he took it home with him.The answer is simple.
2.Your remarks about the empty box:
You only stated that this entry was more proof
of a forgery.
WHAT PROOF THEN?
WHERE IS IT?
3.Your remarks about the language:
Of course its not the language of "reportage or recall", this is only a diary.
What the hell did you expect to find?
If it was a forgery, the writer would have devoted more time to the killings than he did.
Be honest, he didnt give too much attention to the killings.
He killed 5 Women in Whitechapel and didnt even rell us HOW he killed them.
Seems strange that someone would write a diary and forget to tell the world HOW he killed the women.
No Harris, Im not wasting time.
If I was, you wouldnt have answered.
I have nothing to loose if the Diary can be proved a fake.
You do.
What are you going to write if you are wrong?
I never claimed to be an "ink expert"
But there again, neither are you.
The ink test conducted by Leeds University is proof enough and conclusive.
I wont waste my time going through the facts.
You also refused to meet Anne.
Why?
Do you think she is a liar?
Harris, not everything you say is fact.
Not everything you write is fact.
The fact that the diary is still alive and kicking proves you still dont have a leg to stand on.
If you havent managed to prove it by now, you never will.
Thats probably the reason why you explode at people and resort to name-calling.
I only speak for myself, but im afraid I cant take you for real.
Its like fighting with a kid.
I choose what material I want to read,not you.
I dont have to read your " technical reports and analyses" because they are not based on neutral opinion.
You bend the facts to fit your obsession with the Maybrick hoax theory.
I suggest you have an afternoon stroll through the park with Anne.Or are you only scared what you might hear?
Mark |
Author: Mark Goeder
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 07:31 am | | Mr Harris,
Reading some of your messages I stumbled over some interesting comments made by people.
Maybe you should be a little more careful when trying to prove your point.
Just to refresh your memory:
THE DIARY HOAX: MYOPIA AGIN
1. Paul Begg. Friday Nov 20 1998
2. Yazoo. Tuesday Nov 24 1998
Your answeres coincide with Michael J Bruneio from April 1 2000.
Mark |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 09:36 am | | G'day Caz,
To answer your quiz:
The cartoon came from 'St Stephen's Review'.
It is called 'Home Secretary Sir Henry Mathews considering a pardon for Florence Maybrick'.
I wouldn't have a clue who drew it and yes I do think it could have inspired a forger.
It is found in: 'The Final Chapter'.
Leanne! |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 11:56 am | | In an effort to make some objective observations on what has been said above I would like to say the following.
Melvin Harris is a respected author and has a fine track record of objectivity and exposing various frauds. He has achieved much and has added much to the field of research and writing on the Whitechapel murders, as well as other areas of research. I find that Mr. Harris can and does accept a lot of what others think and write, certainly where they themselves have contributed something constructive in the field of historiography.
To address certain points raised by Mr. Goeder, above, I would say: -
1. Regarding the missing heart. Mr. Goeder seems to be labouring under a misapprehension when he states, as he did in an earlier post, "NO WHERE was a missing heart to be found until it recently surfaced in Kelly's autopsy report." Not so Mr. Goeder, the said 'autopsy report' (which it wasn't, it was a preliminary examination report) was that of Dr. Bond which was returned to New Scotland Yard in 1987, some thirteen years ago and it has been published many times since then. Also to quote from The Times of Saturday, November, 10, 1888, page 7, column d, (inter alia) "The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts..." (sic). It was also later reported in the Observer that the heart was altogether missing from the room. Anyway, "No heart" may refer to the heart being merely removed from the body, or entirely from the room and missing altogether. It is ambiguous. Suffice to say that it proves nothing at all in relation to the 'diary.'
2. A look at the original property list accompanying the Eddowes inquest report (Coroner's Inquest (L), 1888, No. 135. Catherine Eddowes inquest, 1888) reveals the following details (inter alia, last 10 items only listed) : -
"1 Tin Box containing Tea.
"1 do do do Sugar.
"1 Piece of Flannel & 6 pieces of Soap.
"1 Small Tooth comb.
"1 White Handle Table Knife & 1 metal Tea Spoon.
"1 Red Leather Cigarette Case, white metal fittings
"1 Tin Match Box. empty.
"1 piece of Red Flannel containing Pins & Needles.
"1 Ball of Hemp.
"1 piece of old White Apron.
Most of the items of property were found on the body (in the pockets) at the mortuary. What is a nonsense is to think that in near pitch dark the murderer took the items out of her pockets, made a mental note of what they were (in the dark) then replaced them again in the pockets. The only items lying on the ground near the body were 3 small black buttons, a common metal thimble, and a small mustard tin containing 2 pawn tickets.
3. What Mr. Harris was trying to explain to you about the phrase "tin match box empty" is that the wording is exactly that used in the inquest property list, and not the phraseology of normal language as used in speech or when writing a book, composing verse, or, indeed, writing a 'diary.'
It is also a nonsense suggested in the 'diary' that the writer (as the Whitechapel murderer) was responsible for not only the writing in chalk in the Goulston Street doorway and the 'Dear Boss' correspondence, but also the 'From hell' letter sent to George Lusk.
There are many other factors indicating a hoax such as the non-existent first murder in Manchester, and the liberal use of phrases from the popular 'Ripper' letters none of which are likely to have come from the real killer.
The simple fact, in layman's terms, regarding the ink tests is that the AFI test was done under strict laboratory test conditions and showed the presence of chloroacetamide, whilst the Leeds test was flawed.
A close examination of the original mortuary photographs of the victims reveals no 'M' on Eddowes' face (they are two roughly inverted 'v' shaped cuts on either side of her face and it would take a vivid imagination to work them together as an 'M'), nor is there an 'M' on the partition of Kelly's room.
I don't know the sources of Mr. Goeder's speculation but I suspect I know the books he is quoting and accepting as fact. I was very deeply involved on the 'inside' during the build-up of the 'diary' story and there are many things I know that I am unable to quote in a public forum.
I am sure that everyone on these boards is interested in getting their basic facts right, for it is only on this foundation that an individual theory may be safely built. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 12:28 pm | | Caroline Anne:
You're on good terms with Paul Begg. Why not contact him and set up a meeting with Keith Skinner? You are also on good terms with Shirley Harrison. She can contact Anne Graham on your behalf (if indeed you haven't already met Anne.)
Regarding Prof Rubenstein's Harlech TV interview which most of you will not have seen, it consisted of about 6 minutes split into thirds. The first part was a very elegant Jack accosting a young lady in the back alleys of Llandrindod Wells ("Are you looking for a good time, deary?") The second was Prof. R. scenically shot on the beach at Aberystwyth saying that he was 90% sure that Maybrick was Jack and the third was me saying that it was more likely that pigs would fly. I promise you that we both said much more than that, (I for one made a stinging accusation against Sooty) but the exigencies of the Welsh/Brazil football match and the doings of the Welsh Assembly caused a lot of editting. So the situation is that the percentage of the Public who read History Today or watch Harlech TV News are now convinced that Maybrick was Jack and that should be reflected fairly soon by odd and unusual submissions to this site.
It has been mentioned that the Diary, if forged, shows a breadth of scholarship that cannot be attributed to those who have been suggested as the forgers. That I think is nonsense. The information used is pretty basic and can be gleaned from books current in 1990. To write it there was no need for any intensive research, and it could have been put together very quickly. But is there something within the diary itself that most of us have missed? Is there some information given in its pages that conclusively proves either that it is the true voice of James Maybrick or that it's an "old forgery?" Is there anyone out there who can put these points for the diary and who is willing for us to discuss them? I wait in hope.
Peter. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 05:21 pm | | Hi Stewart,
You are not objective in your observations as you think you are.
You obviously have the highest regards for Mr Harris but accuse me of accepting ALL the books I have read as fact.
If I had only 1 book and my arguements were based souly on this book, I could half agree with you.
My source of Information is most probably the same as yours.
There is a limited amount of material available and when it has been used up people start making up there own facts.
By the way, you state Mr Harris accepts what other people think and right.
I didnt have to prove you wrong on that one.
Mr Harris done that all on his own.
The two inverted "V" on Eddowes cheeks were described by the autopsy report from Dr Brown:
" There was on each side of the cheek a cut which
peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half."
If I was to cut 2 inverted "V" s in to flesh and the cut PEELED up, what would it look like?
What letter will you see?
Why should anyone take the time to do something like that after killing his victim?
Mark G |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 07:47 pm | | Mr. Goeder,
I have high regard for Melvin Harris, as I also have high regard for Don Rumbelow, Phil Sugden, Robin Odell, Keith Skinner, and many others. They are all friends of mine. By the same token we certainly do not all agree on every aspect of the the case. However, I can say that you will find no real authority on the subject of the Whitechapel murders who believes the 'diary' to be genuine.
I do not recall stating that you accept "ALL the books you have read as fact." After all you have read one of Mr. Harris's books and you don't seem to accept what he says. What I did say was that I suspected that I know which books you are accepting and quoting as fact. An entirely different thing.
I very much doubt that your source of information is the same as mine, unless you have access to the same primary sources that I am using.
At the risk of this debate becoming rather puerile, I did say that "Mr. Harris can and does accept a lot of what others think and write, certainly when they themselves have contributed something constructive in the field of historiography." I am afraid that you are twisting my words and I did not make the blanket statement that "Mr Harris accepts what other people think and right (sic)." After all, like me, he could hardly accept some of the things that you say and write.
As regards the injuries to Catherine Eddowes face,
it is a nonsense to read the letter 'M' into her facial mutilation. Apart from the inverted 'v' flaps, why should he take the time to make the other seven cuts to her face and what letters do they make?
I am sorry that you are unable to grasp some of the basic facts, I have but tried to assist. As I wish to take no further part in pointless argument, I again depart these boards. |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 08:21 pm | | Mr. Evans, you are too fine a fellow to deprive the respectable people here of your eminence. Please hasten back to the fold.
Good Luck,
David |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 09:52 pm | | STEWART: Many thanks for posting the pic of the right-side view of Eddowes face! This one is lighter toned than the one on Casebook's main menu ... Therefore I can make out the details a bit better.
Thanks,
Janice |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 02:04 am | | Thank you David and Janice, I'll try to drop in when I can,
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Mark Goeder
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 03:59 am | | Mr Evans,
If you havent already departed I would like to state the following:
I havent contribributed anything constructive in the field of historiography.
I am not an Author
I am not a "Ripperologist"
I havent read every single book on JTR either.
I am in no way connected to the board.
Does this mean I am not qualified to make statements?
I did read a Mr Harris book, but that doesnt mean I have to accept what it says.Why should I ?
The fact that you have lots of friends like Rumbelow, Skinner, Odell etc doesnt change the way I should think.What about Feldman,Wilson and Harrison, are they also friends of yours?
When I wrote my postings I didnt expect anyone to accept my views.
You,Mr Evans cant expect the same.
The same applies to me Harris.
The fact that he is a highly respected Author doesnt give him the right to decide what is fact and what isnt.
That is for the reader to decide.
You respect Mr Harris as an Author and I respect Mr Wilson.
Who is right and who is wrong?
It doesnt matter.
Why is it "nonsense" to read the letter "M" in Eddowes face?
The killer probably cut the "M" after he mutilated the rest of her.
You saying it is nonsense doesnt mean a thing Im afraid.
I have grasped the basic facts Mr Evans and just because you dont agree with me doesnt mean I am wrong and you are right.
When it comes to the diary, there are more people who think the way I do.
Are we ALL wrong?
How many thousends more are not " grasping " the facts?
M.Goeder |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 05:47 am | | Hi All,
Well done Leanne, for spotting that cartoon in The Final Chapter. I must admit I’d forgotten it was featured in Feldman’s book. I believe it was actually entitled Whitechapel at Whitehall, and the caption read ‘Attempted murder of Florence Maybrick, save her Mr Matthews!’
I’m really sorry and confess to being a bit thick, but I just don’t agree with a couple of conclusions Melvin Harris comes to in his post of May 3rd @ 07-04 pm.
The try-out lines in the diary which contain ‘tin match box empty’ are not in ‘the stiff language of an inventory’ IMHO. They are phrases or words the diarist is musing over before completing his rather poor rhymes. Hence, his try-out words ‘tea and sugar’ become ‘Sweet sugar and tea’. And moreover, the ‘SEQUENCE’ the diarist uses does NOT correspond with that of the police inventory.
Just compare the two, from my post of May 4th @ 04.00 am, and Stewart Evans @ 11.56 am:
'Sir Jim,
tin match box empty
cigarette case (struck through)
make haste ( ditto )
my shiny knife ( ditto )
the whores knife ( ditto )
first whore no good
....tea and sugar...'
'"1 Tin Box containing Tea.
"1 do do do Sugar.
"1 Piece of Flannel & 6 pieces of Soap.
"1 Small Tooth comb.
"1 White Handle Table Knife & 1 metal Tea Spoon.
"1 Red Leather Cigarette Case, white metal fittings
"1 Tin Match Box. empty.
"1 piece of Red Flannel containing Pins & Needles.
"1 Ball of Hemp.
"1 piece of old White Apron.'
IMHO, the diarist implies in subsequent passages annoyance at finding the tin match box empty and writes ‘I could not possibly redeem it here’ (meaning either the box or the ‘case’, ie the cigarette case, and ‘here’, possibly meaning in Liverpool, so far from the crime scene). If the diarist is implying the match box or cigarette case, or both, are his own possessions left at the scene (and the police may have thought the same about the match box, hence the decision to withhold this particular item from the public) then we are left with the tea, sugar and ‘the whore’s knife’, presumably the ‘White Handle Table Knife’ in the inventory. Why then must the murderer have even looked in the pockets at the scene? The diarist has already told us how he looks at the newspaper reports. Could he not have found the three culinary items there to compose his kidney supper verses?
I agree with what has been said about our diarist using all the famous ripper stuff for his composition, the ‘Dear Boss’ and ‘From hell’ letters etc. So I am not saying that the tin match box was NOT pinched from the inventory post-1987.
I’m just trying to get inside this forger’s head as he/she was making decisions about what to include and why. The match box was the only item which was worded almost identically to the inventory.
Our pesky forger did not make the same error with the red cigarette case (despite his passion for the colour), the table knife or the ‘Tin Box containing Tea’, or even the ‘do do do Sugar’. Now THAT would have been more of a give-away. :-)
Have a good weekend all.
I shall be partaking of tapas tonight which will include my favourite: kidney and chips. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 05:47 am | | Mark - Before this discussion will turn ugly again, go to http://www.casebook.org/casebook.html. Choose Victims and after that Catherine Eddowes. A lot of pics are to be found there. One of the last is a drawing. Look very carefully at the face for al long detailed time. There is no real M to be seen, only the M(?) your mind tries to create. One of the favourite things a mind tries to do is figure out patterns, a lot of modern art is just based on that principle. I confess I see patterns too myself (not an M, but a clowns face), but I cannot conclusively say that was the purpose of the killer, so it is not fact and not reliable to base conclusions. Please look at this objective, aka NOT your belief, because 'belief' and 'wanting' are closely related.
PS. I'm still writing on that mail for you.
Jill |
|
|
|
|
