|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The Forty New Pages
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Forty New Pages
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 08 April 2002 - 03:48 pm |        | Hi, Caz
Can you respond to Chris George's question from Saturday, 06 April 2002 - 02:19 am?
David |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 08 April 2002 - 04:19 pm | | Hi All,
Thanks to Scott Nelson, for appreciating where I was coming from in my post of Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 12:51 pm. 
Hi Chris,
I’m sorry but your response to my post referred to above seemed to me to bear no relation to what I actually wrote, or to what you must surely know about my position by now.
What grave mistake can I be making? I never said that, because none of the modern hoax theorists can agree on, or come close to identifying, who was involved in creating the diary, this means it can’t be a modern forgery. I have only said that it appears odd to me that you are all so sure you are right about it being one, despite the fact that you all have different ideas (apart from John, who has no idea at all) about who was likely involved and who wasn’t. This leaves me with an overwhelming desire to keep all my balls in the air and all my options open. How that can be described as a grave mistake (for a woman, at any rate  ) is truly beyond me. If a modern forger is ever identified I will be 100% satisfied with the stance I have taken from the beginning. The only grave mistake that could be happening here is for normally highly intelligent and astute scholars to close off their minds to anything other than the post-1987 finished product theory (and post-1989 for those who believe Mike’s Sphere was the cause of the O costly entry, or Fido’s book the reason for breasts by feet and no heart, as per Bond), when the total mess that is the provenance affects not only Feldy’s chances of tracing this document right back to Maybrick’s time, but also, apparently, anyone else’s chances of attaching the thing to one of the modern players.
Just as with the Ripper murders, until we know who dunnit, it is a mistake to assume anything about what drove him (or them) to do it. The diary of James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper was written, as you say, ‘by person or persons unknown’, for reasons unknown, just as those women in 1888 were butchered, by person or persons unknown, for reasons unknown. I have never argued that Maybrick wrote this document, so I don’t know why your responses to me still include things like ‘but that is surely not proof that Maybrick wrote it as the document purports to say’. And I don’t know why you continue to imply you are so much nobler than others, like Shirley Harrison, because you hope ‘the truth will be revealed sooner or later, and whomever is responsible for this tawdry sham will at last be exposed’, as if Shirley is somehow hoping that if Mike or Anne or Tony or Gerard or Albert or Robbie were knowingly involved in forgery the truth will never come out. That is unworthy of you because you must know it’s not true, not least because of Shirley’s public and repeated pleas to Melvin Harris to reveal any information he has against the supposed forgers.
Hi RJ,
Okay, so you haven’t expressed an opinion as to whether Anne knows who wrote the diary. Do you have an opinion on whether she knows it to be of modern origin then? Might she be ignorant of how Mike really came by it, and dependent only on what he has told her? What if he told her the same as he told everyone else – that Tony gave it to him? I’m just trying to work out what you think she could have found out about its true origins, once it was in Mike’s hands, that would make her ‘involved after the fact’. Whether her 1994 story is true or not, does that automatically mean she must be aware that the diary is a recent creation? Can you not imagine that she might actually believe it to be old, despite the fact that you and others on this board find it such a ridiculous concept yourselves?
I have no ‘agenda’ RJ, despite your continued efforts to suggest I do, thinly disguised as hopes that I don’t. I certainly wouldn’t want to lead you down any steps that I myself am not treading. I do agree though that tapes of Mike speaking privately to the 'other side' might be extremely useful.
Yes, you are wrong. I don’t ‘claim’ that Mike was a dupe. I am only suggesting that we assess all the evidence to see if he could have been, and what sense we can make of it either way. The lack of a straight story from Anne or Mike about the provenance of the diary is not ‘somehow being used to defend the obscurity of its origins’. You are using the lack of it as evidence of their involvement in forgery. And it simply is not enough RJ. If they weren’t involved, anyone who claims they were is in trouble. But if either of them were involved, I can’t possibly be in trouble for waiting until I see proof before I will believe it.
Presumably Anne could have destroyed that letter from Mike accusing her of writing the diary, or at least kept it to herself, if it threatened her own position in any way. And then, unless Mike had kept a copy, and decided to produce it, it would never have come to light. From memory it was written in 1996 but I can ask Keith for confirmation and further details if you like.
Let’s hope, as you say, that your confidence in Melvin Harris and his private information about where the diary really came from will prove justified if and when his book comes out.
I thought you were going to try to check if Maurice Chittenden had any evidence at all for his assertion that Mike Barrett ‘made the rounds in London for several months trying to sell the Maybrick diary before Crew got hold of it’. I haven’t heard of anyone else finding the evidence for this yet. But again, time will no doubt reveal if this was more than mere assumption.
Love,
Caz
PS No, I’ve no news to report on the forty pages I’m afraid. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 08 April 2002 - 04:48 pm | | Caz,
"From memory it was written in 1996 but I can ask Keith for confirmation and further details if you like."
Could you also confirm for us if Keith met with Mike Barrett last month when you next speak with him?
Thank you,
David |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 05:54 am | | Hi David,
I will pass on your post in the usual way, along with all others to this board, to Keith Skinner. When he reads it he will let me know if there is anything he wants me to post on his behalf.
Keith is not easy to pin down these days as he travels back and forth to Liverpool, and I'd rather get direct quotes from him before we make any assumptions about who he has or hasn't met up with there.
Love,
Caz |
Author: TrueBrits
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 10:26 am | | Hello,
Regarding the Diary of JTR, I'm not going to disclose my belief. That is not the point of this post. The purpose of this post is to express a thought or two on this great debate about the identity of JTR for well over a century now as well as the great debate over the authenticity of the Diary. The mystery of JTR is an institution in its own. The question of JTR's identity has grown into a huge entity as well as a cottage industry. There are the ever-increasing tonnes of books, magazine articles, movies, museums, telly programmes, tours, places, various e-mail and various internet forums, news, conferences, conventions, souvenirs, and the list is unending. There's the key word: UNENDING. If and when the Diary of JTR is proven beyond the most minimal shadow of doubt to be authentic and James Maybrick is completely and irrevocably convicted of being JTR, which would bring the demise, for the most part, of this cottage industry of debate in all its vehicles or forums, including this one. The life blood of this ultimate mystery of all mysteries is the fact it still remains a rampant mystery. Its self-propogating intrigue is jolly good fun and all the world loves a "good British murder mystery". To get directly to the point is that the mystery of JTR will never be completely solved and the Diary of JTR will never be proven 100% to be authentic because it would NOT be permitted to be so. This situation or any occurrence, similar subject, current event, etc., should be immediately addressed with the question, "Who benefits?". As long as the mystery of JTR remains unsolved, then books, newspaper, and magazine articles on JTR will continue to be written, telly programmes, movies, as well as all the other forums I mentioned above will continue to proliferate. The mystery of JTR is Big Business. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 05:30 pm | | TrueBrits writes:
"To get directly to the point is that the mystery of JTR will never be completely solved and the Diary of JTR will never be proven 100% to be authentic because it would NOT be permitted to be so."
I don't believe this conspiracy nonsense for a moment. It seems like the worst sort of unevidenced paranoia.
To take a hypothetical: if a document turned up which had a verifiable provenance and for which there was at least some evidence somewhere that actually linked it in some way to 1888 and the Ripper crimes, I think all the responsible historians here would take it very seriously. And if it was a confession and it was ever properly and thoroughly authenticated, I think the dynamics of this case would change considerably. I do not think any forces would actively work against the publication or authentication of such material simply to prevent the truth from being discovered.
This is irrelevant to the diary case, of course, since there is no evidence anywhere that in any way links that document to 1888 or to the Ripper case historically and there is no reason whatsoever, of any sort, to think it is anything but a fake.
But the notion that there is some sort of active, evil conspiracy to prevent the historical truth from being discovered at all costs I believe is paranoid nonsense.
True Brit also writes:
"If and when the Diary of JTR is proven beyond the most minimal shadow of doubt to be authentic and James Maybrick is completely and irrevocably convicted of being JTR, which would bring the demise, for the most part, of this cottage industry of debate in all its vehicles or forums, including this one."
First of all, this is hard to respond to since it is not actually a sentence. But as an incomplete fragment, I think I can tell what the writer is trying (awkwardly) to say, and I think they are wrong again.
If any document was ever "proven beyond the most minimal shadow of a doubt" to be a genuine confession and anyone was "completely and irrevocably convicted of being JTR," obviously the history would be written accordingly (althought there would no doubt still be those who would stubbornly argue for their own favorite suspect despite the absolute conclusion built into the premise, that the case had been solved). But if you grant the unlikely premise above, then I do not believe that the historians I have met that work on this case would actively conspire to suppress these findings. Nor do I believe they ultimately could, even if they wanted to, since the market would be so large for such a discovery.
Of course, the specifics of this particular fragment of a premise are silly, since the diary is a fake and there is no evidence anywhere on the planet that the real James Maybrick had anything whatsoever to do with the Ripper crimes. But, theoretically speaking, if someone finally, once and for all, proved that Citizen X was the Ripper beyond any doubt, as I say, I believe the history would then be written accordingly.
We must be very wary of giving in to paranoia simply because there is no evidence to support our case.
All the best,
--John |
Author: TrueBrits
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 07:38 pm | | John,
I wasn't talking about any conspiracy and it is not paranoia. I was talking about facts. It always comes down to money. You must admit there continues to be a great deal of money being made as a result of the true identity of JTR. I'll use a genuine example to illustrate my point. Approximately 10 years ago, I saw a medical news segment about a prescription nasal spray which would prevent family members from catching the cold of another family member. The report stated that it was never marketed. The news reporter explained that the AMA was preventing the availability of this preventitive medication because that would result in less business for physicians. This was shocking to me. I thought doctors were supposed to treat and prevent ailments. That's what medical research is all about. The fact that this medication was being withheld angered me. As a parent, I certainly would want a preventitive measure against colds for my children as well as any good parent would for their children. It just didn't make any sense. Pharmaceutical companies like making enormous amounts of money and a pharmaceutical breakthrough such as this would cause their revenue to soar limitlessly. Of course there would be considerable profits for physicians as well. The pharmaceutical companies reward physicians for prescribing their brands over another company's. This medical news report was demanding answers. I doubt if any were obtained. I never saw or heard anything about the subject ever again.
It is naive to think that money would not occupy a higher position before people's well-being. As tragic as that is, it is usually the case. Unfortunately, this is a material world we live in. It's unfair & disgusting!
Cheers!
'Anne' |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 08:31 pm | | Hi 'Anne,'
Of course "it always comes down to money." But that is a different claim than the one you originally made, which was that the truth, even if it was proven 100% "beyond the most minimal shadow of a doubt," would never be "permitted" to come out because some people would suppress it.
In fact, precisely because of the money there would be to be made, no group of professional historians or Ripperologists would be able to suppress such a discovery for very long. Information of that sort has a way of eventually becoming public, if only because of the profit potential and the driving market. So to suggest, as you did in your original post that a solution "would not be permitted" is in fact a paranoid fear that suggests, without any material or relevant evidence whatsoever, that responsible historians would somehow prevent an achieved solution from being released. We're not talking about medical research or the pharmaceutical companies here. We're talking about the historical record. And that has a way of being written and re-written continuously despite the best efforts of anyone to control it. So I'm afraid your theory that the truth about Jack, if it was ever discovered, would be secretly suppressed, remains completely unfounded.
All the best,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 10:56 pm | | Dear 'Anne'--Let's turn your hypothesis on its ear and see what we can find.
The Maybrick diary has become quite a little cottage industry of its own...
There have been three editions by Shirley Harrison and an investigative book by Paul Feldman. There was also a video produced by Paul Feldman. There is at least one major Maybrick film in the works, and from what I'm hearing there's going to be a couple more books dealing with the diary investigation before long. Oh, and there's also Anne Graham's biography of Florie, which also uses the Maybrick diary as one of its sources.
So, if money is the key...
Do you see where I am going?
How can you assure me that if the diary has been proven to be a great heap of nonsense and a forgery beyond all doubt, that this fact wouldn't be hushed up in order to 'keep the Maybrick cottage industry going'??
Do you see my point?
Now..please believe me when I say that I'm not knocking you...but...do you see how insulting some people might find this argument?
The experts who have discreditted the Maybrick diary [and they include non-Ripperologists like Joe Nickell and Kenneth Rendell] have clearly based their opinions and remarks independent of any base motive. They truly believe that the evidence demonstrates that the Maybrick diary is a hoax.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 08:15 am | | Hi ‘Anne’,
If I were you, I wouldn’t take everything that news reporter wrote as gospel. You don’t know how objective he was being with his explanation for why the prescription nasal spray was never marketed. Did he have evidence or was it only his opinion? Might it have had less to do with being so effective that it would have resulted in lost business for physicians, and more to do with the remedy proving ineffective in tests? The common cold is caused by a virus, and I believe I am right in saying that there are about two hundred different cold viruses, any one of which can be the culprit doing the rounds of one family at any time. In order to prevent one family member being infected by the virus currently afflicting another, this nasal spray would need to be effective against every existing cold virus. All in all, it sounds to me highly unlikely that such a spray could live up to its claims honestly and to an acceptable degree. My guess is that we are still a long way off finding such a remedy for the common cold. And that would explain, for me anyway, why that spray was never marketed. That’s just me being cynical.
But the same could be said for theories about who the ripper was, or who wrote the Maybrick diary. A good theory will stand the test of time, even though it may never be proved beyond doubt. Put a poor one up and it can be shot down, sometimes very quickly, sometimes it takes more time and effort, as evidence mounts against it, or information becomes available to disprove it totally. People shouldn’t be afraid to put up theories and have other people test them, question them and offer evidence or proof against them. That’s how science progresses – shoot down all theories as they are put up and see which ones are still standing at the end. Even the last one may not be the right one, and then we would need a new theory to test.
Hi RJ,
I don’t know about how insulting some people might find ‘Anne’s’ argument. But others might find your own suggestion rather amusing, that the fact that the diary has been proven to be a great heap of nonsense and a forgery beyond all doubt may be being ‘hushed up’ in order to 'keep the Maybrick cottage industry going'.
What do you mean, ‘hushed up’, since you appear to know all about it! And precious few of us here are arguing that the diary was written by James Maybrick aka Jack the Ripper. Some of us are arguing that, while it may be a ‘great heap of nonsense’ and ‘a forgery beyond all doubt’, the mystery remains as to when it was put together, why it was put together, how it was put together and who did it. Therefore the diary remains an unresolved ‘great heap of nonsense’, which will inevitably continue to attract new theories, good, bad and indifferent. You just might have to learn to live with that.
I notice you fail to mention any of the experts who have also ‘clearly based their opinions and remarks independent of any base motive’, and who truly believe that no firm conclusions about the origins of either the diary or the watch can be reached at present. That doesn’t necessarily make them poorer experts than those who have stuck their necks out and come to a definite conclusion. And it certainly doesn’t follow that they must be foolish or incompetent, or somehow less honest and sincere in their beliefs.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 08:21 am | | Hi 'Annie'
Im not your Daddy
Monty
 |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 11:33 am | | Hi Anne:
Two years ago the first US conference on Jack the Ripper had as its theme the dispelling of myths about Jack the Ripper, of which there are many, such as that there was fog on the night of the murders. ABC News's Diane Sawyer said on the PrimeTime Live segment on Patricia Cornwell that you could not see six inches in front of your face... did Cornwell tell her that? 
One of the myths that we hear over and over is that Ripperologists don't want the murders solved and don't want Ripper identified. This past weekend at the second US conference in Baltimore, one of our last sessions was an open discussion on the murders. Such discussion is typical of people interested in this topic, who want to know the truth and not hide it as you assert. A number of theories and ideas were discussed, including a theory by Dr. James Stargel that the Goulston Street Graffito was an anagram that includes the names "Abberline" and "Druitt." My answer to him was the same one in regard to the Diary, in which Abberline is also given great prominence--that a person of 1888 would not have seen Abberline as the prime or only detective on which to focus, and that other detectives such as Inspector Reed would have seemed important, too. Discussion of Stargel's theory developed into a lively discussion of the "Jewes" versus "Jews" word and that led us onto other topics such as the alleged "FM" on Mary Jane Kelly's wall and the photographs of Kelly and the other victims, and so on. Ripper expert Donald Rumbelow was on hand to illuminate our discussions and give us the benefit of his expertise and knowledge. Believe me, Anne, what you say is untrue. Ripperologists are not trying to hide the truth. The plain fact is that so little is known about the murderer that we are all scrambling for the truth rather than to hide it.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 01:29 pm | | Anne
I think I, more than anyone else here understand what you are trying to say.
If I could liken it thus:
The best part of a holiday is the travelling there.
If you are watching a good film or reading a good book, do you ever want it to end?
And therein lies what I think you were trying to say about Jack the Ripper. The fascination for all of us (except John, who just likes to pick up on 'fragments) is that the mystery is unsolved. If the mystery were solved and Jacky was revealed as a spotty little oik with acne, do you think the Maybrickites, Druittists and Tumbletyites would be rolling about in the aisles? No, I don't.
So, I go with John on this one. I don't think there would be a conspiracy (although it has been alleged regards Prince Eddy, Gull etc) to conceal JTR's identity, I just think that some people would not be able to see what is right at the end of their own noses.
The truth.
'FM' for instance.
Cheers
Peter
ps. Monty: Loved your Kid Creole and the Coconuts pastiche! |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 08:18 pm | | No static at all....
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 10:22 pm | | Caz--Hi. Well, you got me all wrong. I suggested nothing of the sort! My point was merely to show how insulting it would be to suggest that Feldman, Harrison, etc. were merely milking the Maybrick goat for a few extra drops long after the diary has been proven a fake....(I didn't say they were doing that!)...just as it is insulting to suggest that experts would give a certain theory or a document short shrift just to keep the Ripper game rolling. This is nonsense, and I think John O. has done a good job in explaining why it is nonsense. I can't think of anyone who has become a historian for the money! That's quite a joke, really. Wall Street, yes. But I have noticed that this argument keeps reappearing on this site every four months or so, and it always has to do with the Maybrick diary. The diary can't hold up to scrutiny, so what is the answer? Obviously a conspiracy. Feldman chapter and verse.
That said, I don't mean to rake 'Anne' over the coals on this one. She strikes me as sincere, and she's not alone in this belief. It just rubs me the wrong way when it is used in conjunction with the Maybrick diary, a document that isn't even in Maybrick's handwriting!
And, though I'm not sure I understand you, I didn't think I needed to name any specific 'Ripperologists' in this context because the long list of experts who have given the Maybrick document the thumbs-down has already been made public many times. It includes pretty much everyone, with a couple of exceptions, doesn't it?
Cheers, RP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 07:48 am | | Hi RJ,
You got me wrong too so that makes two of us. You included in your 'experts' non-Ripperologists such as Nickell and Rendell. So when I countered by referring to experts who have been unable to reach any firm conclusions about the diary or the watch's origins, I was including every type of expert who had examined either artefact, scientific, literary, historical, you name it.
And I stand by what I wrote. These experts don't know where the artefacts came from. It's a simple matter of fact - they don't. None of them do. And that's got nothing to do with any suspicions, or professional opinions, no matter how strong, that neither was the work of James Maybrick himself.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 12:39 pm | | Hi, all:
The supposed claim that there are "forty new pages" of the Diary is apparently baseless, according to information I have received from two sources who appear to know what they are talking about. If Keith Skinner knows any different, Caz, please let us know.
First, when he appeared at the Baltimore convention April 19-21, Andy Aliffe who received the original phone call from Mike Barrett in which Barrett announced the existence of the new pages and that "Maybrick was the one" said that he thought there was no basis to Barrett's claim.
Second, I have just received an e-mail from Shirley Harrison on another matter. When I asked her about the alleged new Diary pages, Shirley stated, "No of course there were no missing pages." She meant of course that she knows of no new "missing" pages that have come to light. We all know that there are some pages missing from the scrapbook (commonplace book) that holds the Diary.
So this appears to be a dead end and yet another twist in the bizarre and very strange saga of the Maybrick Diary.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 12:40 pm | | Hi Chris,
If Keith knows any different, I guess he'll be the one to let you know, not me.
But a little bird told me never to underestimate Mike Barrett. And I tend to trust certain little birds, especially the early ones that catch the worms.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 05:52 pm | | Don't cry tears for the forty pages. If they don't exist then we haven't lost anything, for we had nothing to lose. If Mike is still working on them then I guess that means they are ... fakes!
It doesn't mean that the original diary isn't genuine though. Mike has tried and tried to prove that he forged the diary, and each time he has failed miserably - even failing to mention the one piece of evidence that could have caused myself, Shirley, Robert and PHF to pack our suitcases and go home.
Mike - here's a clue for you: Whichever edition of the Sphere guide you use this time, make a note of it and keep the note in your pocket, then when you go to see your tin pot lawyer you can spill the beans. No problem.
Mike Barrett. Didn't I once say I felt sorry for him?
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
