|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 06 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Forty New Pages:
Archive through 06 April 2002
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 10:57 am |        | Hi RJ,
'The interesting thing to me is not what Mike's new 40 pages might do to the case against Maybrick ...but rather what it would do to Anne Graham's provenance story. If Mike can truly produce new material in the same handwriting, I would have to say that Anne Graham is out of the equation.'
Now isn't that precisely what we are led to believe Mike would love to do to Anne and her provenance story?
Now all we have to do is wait and see if he has done it. Can he pull it off? Or, more to the point, has he pulled them out? Or is it wishful thinking on more than just Mike's part, and is he hoping to be taken on trust, indefinitely, that he has these pages as proof that Anne's story is hogwash, even if he never actually produces them? Like that auction receipt, where Mike was believed in preference to the auctioneers themselves?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 11:07 am | | PS And no, I haven't heard anything from Keith yet. But then I do have a 'Do not disturb - Easter egg munching in progress' sign on my door.  |
Author: Michael Leonard Tate
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 12:55 am | | From an article this morning in the Manchester Herald.
Quote:Jack the Ripper: Back to haunt us?
A famous diary first unveiled in the 1980’s purporting to reveal the identity of London’s legendary murderer, Jack the Ripper, has today turned a new leaf in the case’s history. New pages from the controversial diary have been unearthed and help to shine a new light on the ongoing argument over Jack’s profile. Under exclusive rights, we have been approached by the diary’s keeper to publish selected excerpts. Read on for the next chapter in the Ripper saga:
All rights reserved. Any part of this publication may be disregarded, stored in a disposal system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means with the prior permission of the author, nor be otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it was created and without a similar conscience being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
All characters in this publication are fictitious and any resemblance to real persons, living or murdered, is highly intentional.
|
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 06:59 am | | Great stuff Michael - thanks for the titter.
Following on from RJ's post, in which he considers what the new pages, if they exist, would do to Anne's story, one wonders why it would have taken Mike quite so long to figure this out for himself.
There appeared to be nothing fake about Mike's angry reaction to, and denial of, Anne's story back in 1994. So why, if he had the new pages back then, didn't he produce them, putting an immediate end to her funny little games?
I have asked many times if Anne took a risk, when telling her 'in the family' story, that Mike would somehow or someday be able to prove she was lying.
Well, RJ? Do you believe Mike wanted to prove Anne's story false in 1994? And do you believe he could succeed if he really wanted to, and whenever he wants to?
Love,
Caz
PS It was 10 years ago this month that Mike took the diary to London. I wonder how much more is really known about its origins this April than was known back then? |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 08:29 am | | Forty pages. Maybe it's one page for each day that Jesus spent in the wilderness. Easter and all that.
Is there much point in discussing them until we (or Keith, at least) have seen them?
Isn't it rather likely that Mike has turned the best trick of all and got us discussing the emperor's new clothes?
Maybe Mike just wants a laugh. Maybe he's going to have the last one.
It won't stop me believing that James was Jack.
And that Herb should be entitled to both sides of the argument.
Happy reading Herb.
Peter. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 08:54 am | | I think the thing everybody needs to remember is after these 40 pages come out there are still 20 more waiting to fall out of the sky into Mike's hands.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 09:15 am | | Hi, Paul:
I think that all we can say is that the author of the Diary has come up with a facsimile of the thoughts of a serial killer, good enough at any rate to make Dr. Forshaw and Professor Canter say that what is expressed in the Diary is consistent with a serial killer's thoughts.
I say "a facsimile of the thoughts of a serial killer" because 1) it isn't written in James Maybrick's handwriting although the writer obviously wants us to believe he is writing as James Maybrick, 2) as John Omlor and I have discussed, there is an unreality to the entries in terms of it not seeming like a day to day record of a real man, rather it is a stagy and melodramatic document that reads like a poor piece of bad fiction, and 3) the writer makes elementary mistakes such as getting Michael Maybrick's profession wrong.
These points indicate why the opinions of Canter and Forshaw are limited because although there may be ideas expressed in the document that seem like those of a serial killer, the entire text has so many things wrong with it that it cannot be a document written by James Maybrick aka Jack the Ripper.
Where we probably agree, Paul, is your statement that it would seem that Anne and Mike might fall short of having the capability to recreate the thoughts of a serial killer to the extent that they could convince Forshaw and Canter.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 05:57 pm | | Hi All,
Not much to respond to from Peter, so I'll take that first.
Regardless of the pointless and irrelevant duck comment, no qualified expert has ever said that Maybrick's handwriting looks anything like the diary or any Ripper letter or anything at all to do with this case whatsoever. And none ever will.
My original statement to Ken is simply true.
Then, just to prove he knows nothing about literary history, Peter writes:
"Crashaw was around a long time before JM, consequently - what problem with the quote being in the diary?"
I wish Peter would read sometimes. It would make things a whole lot easier. Type in "Crashaw" in the search engine and you'll find several long, patient, and documented posts explaining the history of the reception of seventeenth century metaphysical poetry and especially Catholic metaphysical poetry in the nineteenth century. There, you'll see why Crashaw is extremely historically unlikely to have been cited at the time, especially by anyone like the real James Maybrick, and how this particular poem is even less likely to have been known by this alleged author at the time. In fact, it is much, much more likely that Crashaw would be cited after the 1920's, after Eliot revived the reputation of the metaphysicals and brought them back to the canon of literature, after they began to be discussed critically in things like, say, for instance, the Sphere Guide, than it is that he would be cited during the Victorian era, especially by a C. of E. businessman from Liverpool. And add this particular obscure translation of a sacred Latin hymn to the mix and you have something so historically unlikely that is almost an anachronism. Every scholar of the period I have asked, every expert on the nineteenth century and every expert on seventeenth century poetry, has unanimously agreed (after they finished laughing) that someone like Maybrick citing this Crashaw poem is all but a historical impossibility and that the citation's appearance, to any qualified scholar, casts serious if not irreparable doubt on the authenticity of the document.
Then, just to prove he understands nothing at all about reading, Peter writes:
"You are not qualified to pour scorn on Professor Canter's expert opinions. You have your opinions, but you live in a world of poetry and literature. You don't deal in psychopathology. You are already looking at the diary as a piece of literature, that is why your views are coloured the way they are."
I am fully and professionally qualified to write exactly what I have written, Peter. Canter and Forshaw are not doing psychopathology in this case. If you knew what the word meant, you'd know that. They are not dealing with a patient, or even a known author. They are not interviewing or diagnosing. They can't be, since all they have is an anonymous text with an undetermined truth value. Consequently, all they are really doing, all they can be doing, is reading literature. And I know how reading works, and its operations simply do not allow for the sort of conclusions you would like. And I have about the last fifty years of solid research and writing to support me on this, both in the field of linguistic study and in the field of psychological interpretation. So don't tell me my business, don't tell me what I am qualified to say and, unless you can cite evidence to the contrary, don't suggest that I don't know what I am talking about. You are hopelessly out of your league here, Peter, and you should either admit it publicly or stop debating this one, because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
But not much of what Peter has written here is in any way meaningful, so I'd like to respond to Caz's post, which at least said something rational.
Just one comment, Caz. I actually agree with your characterization of my opinion regarding the state of knowledge concerning the identities of the forgers. Of course, we all know this thing is a fake. (Peter is an amusing side show, a pleasant intellectual distraction, but there is no serious argument for this being anything other than a forgery.) But I have not committed myself to it being a modern forgery or an old forgery either. I believe there is some evidence for it being modern. We all know already what that might be. And I believe that in the end the science is likely, if it ever settles on any finding, to settle on a twentieth century one. But I remain open to the possibility that the thing was faked in steps, faked over years, faked and revised, and that its dates of origins might be any number of years in the twentieth century. I see no evidence anywhere, however, that this book existed in the nineteenth century. And I can see no real reason to think that it did. It's not in Maybrick's handwriting, the science cannot place it in the nineteenth century, the text is riddled with problems, the Crashaw quote makes the nineteenth century much less likely, and there is the line from the police report and all the rest. I don't know when this thing was begun and I don't know when it was finished (sometime before 1992 obviously). But I see no real reason to think it was written in the nineteenth century.
Just wanted to clarify my position.
But none of that should be any reason to abandon your skepticism, Caz. I think it is most healthy.
All the best,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 07:50 pm | | Caz--I never explicitly said that Anne Graham doesn't know who wrote the Maybrick diary---only that I doubt that it was her, and tend to think that she only became involved after the fact. I don't believe her story.
I sometimes suspect that the reason you 'old hoax' theorists and the Paul Feldmans of the world make such odd bedfellows is that you really have the same agenda. Am I being led down six steps?
1. Mike is a dupe [which means...]
2. Anne really did give it to Tony D [which means...]
3. Anne saw it in 1969 and Billy in 1950 [which suggests...]
4. Formby got it from Yapp [....]
5. .....Yapp nicked it from Battlecrease...
6. ...Sir Jim was the Ripper.
I hope this isn't the case. I still don't even buy proposition #1. After hearing the tape that made the rounds here last Spring, unlike you, I didn't get the impression that Mike was being particularly candid. Much of Mike's rambling was obviously spontaneously generated, such as the confused mess about there being two copies of Liverpool Tales. I still tend to suspect that it would be very instructive to compare that tape with the tapes of Mike speaking privately to the 'other side'. Maybe somebody could release those tapes, too?
And correct me if I'm wrong, but your claim that Mike was a dupe seems to rest on two points. First, that Mike so hated Paul Feldman that he would have done anything to derail the Diary Express. I don't see it. Let's say Mike composed the diary down at the local pub with Messrs. X, Y, and Z. If he wanted to yank Feldy's chain why not have the best of both world's and claim that he wrote it himself [thus not 'splitting on a mate'] or better yet implicating his estranged wife and father-in-law? Or why not just say everything under the sun and confuse the hell out of everybody? The fact that Mike's confessions are filled with problems doesn't suggest to me that we can therefore conclude that he wasn't involved with the forgery...or knows where the diary really came from. I think John O. and I once counted 8 or 9 different provenance stories coming from Mike. All this tells us is that Mike hasn't given us a straight answer. If the fact that Anne Grahm and Mike Barrett can't give a straight story about the provenance of the diary is now somehow being used to defend the obscurity of its origins...then those of us who pretend to be historians [either professional or amateur] are in a great deal of trouble.
The other point against Mike seems to be that he made some statement in a private letter to Anne Graham accusing her of writing the diary. As I have already stated, I would need to see the context of the letter and the date of the letter. Who else would have been reading this letter? Could this have been nothing more than what is commonly referred to in divorce court as 'mental cruelty'?
I stand by my belief that the Maybrick diary is recent forgery. I think either Rumbelow or Fido's book was used [1987] as well as the Sphere Guide [1971,1986] and Bernard Ryan's book on the Maybrick case [1977,1984].
As for my belief in Mike's involvement. It's based on several things, including probability and intuition. Just the run-of-the-mill fact that the guy who brings a recent forgery to market is almost always the guy who is involved in its creation; the tardiness and unlikeliness of Anne Graham's story; Mike's ability to produce a citation of the Crashaw quote when everyone else failed to do so; Mike's pointing out the Blue Coat Art Shop to Harold Brough, and the AFI tests that proved the ink was compatible with Diamine--the ink sold at this shop; Mike's curious purchase of the red diary prior to taking the Maybrick diary to London; and last, and certainly by no means least, my confidence that Melvin Harris wasn't merely blowing smoke, and had some private information from the London journalists that suggested where the diary really came from. I'm hoping this last point will be expanded upon soon--if Melvin's book is really in the works.
Finally, I wonder if anyone has written Maurice Chittenden to see if he could expand on his claim that Mike Barrett made the rounds in London for several months trying to sell the Maybrick diary before Crew got hold of it. This could explain the somewhat puzzling lapse between Tony D's death and Mike contacting Crew.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 11:38 pm | | Hi RP
If we claim that some of what Mike said is true and that some of what Mike said is untrue, and that we don’t know which is which, then we are at liberty to use anything he said to support any case we choose to make. And that is precisely what you are doing when you say that Mike could have said anything just to confuse everyone. No matter what Mike says, no matter how contradictory, no matter how much knowledge or ignorance it displays, it can all be answered by saying that Mike was deliberately trying to confuse. This argument is a very convenient get out from looking at anything too closely. It also invests Mike with a purposeful cunning that those of us who were there at the time would be very surprised if he possessed. Also, it ignores the opinion that Mike was a very desperate man who really would have done anything he could to stuff Feldman. This is first-hand witness testimony. Do you really think it is fair and just to dismiss it as Mike was playing a silly game. I'm NOT saying that it isn't what Mike did. You could be right. But equally you should surely give credence to the overall view that Mike was desperate to be believed by Harold Brough.
As for Mike confessing to authoring the ‘diary’ but leaving his mates out of it, do you seriously believe that his mates would have been happy that Mike was casting doubt on the genuineness of the golden goose? Or do you think they might have quietly remonstrated with him and manifested their irritation by threatening to tear his throat out?
But even if they just sat back and quietly sipped their pints while Mike did his best to cripple their scam, why didn’t Mike nevertheless tell the true story of the conception and execution of the ‘diary’, crediting all his partners input to himself? At least that way he’d have been able to provide a sensible and coherent story.
And who were these pals down the pub anyway? What evidence do you have for their existence? And if they existed, what was Mike’s role in the actual creation of the ‘diary’? Or was he just the placer (as Melvin with his inside information has flatly stated). And if he was just the placer, why does he have to have known that the ‘diary’ was a forgery? And if he didn’t have to know, why do you continue to maintain that he wasn’t a dupe?
And if the mates down the pub or wherever never existed and the whole forgery was Mike’s idea and was executed by Mike, then why couldn’t he give a coherent story of its conception and execution?
Because his intention was to confuse? |
Author: Katarina
Friday, 05 April 2002 - 11:58 pm | | | Oh lord, scott told me there were alot of messages concering the new 40 pages but damn, but anyway.....have the police cheaked it out yet???...probably a fake....after 2 hundred years they find a diary haha |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 06 April 2002 - 02:19 am | | Hi, Katarina:
Well, it's not quite 200 years yet, although the way the Maybrick saga goes, it can put the years on pretty rapidly.  I don't know what to make of the silence, whether this means that Mike Barrett's claim that there are actually forty more pages is bogus or whether the fact that we have not heard anything more means there is something to his claim. Caz, any more news from Keith on this?
Best regards
Chris |
|
|
|
|
