|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 18 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Diary 10 Year Anniversary; Reflections:
Archive through 18 April 2002
Author: stephen miller
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 12:27 pm |        | Hi Chris and anyone else feel free to email me any time
all the best
steve
 |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 12:40 pm | | Oh dear, I really have heard it all now, a suggestion that "Sir James" was inspired by the judge at Florie's trial! Dear me, the lengths to which some people will go.
Face it: Florence Aunspaugh called James Mayrbrick "Sir James". That much is documented, is not a lie and does not need to have been inspired by the judge at Florie's trial.
Quite where Florence Aunspaugh got the term "Sir James" from is open to speculation, but she was in his house in 1888 and I dare say that was where she picked it up.
Let's correct some misunderstandings ...
Florence Aunspaugh was NOT one of Maybrick's servants, she was the daughter of a friend. Some of you really should research better.
How many people have the same problem as John Omlor has in believing that somebody called 'James' would also, on occasion, be referred to as 'Jim'? Seriously?
Maybrick was called all manner of things by his wife and friends, so why the problem with believing that he was called 'Jim'? It's even documented that he was referred to as Jim.
So we have Florence Aunspaugh referring to James Maybrick as 'Sir James'.
We have the diarist referring to himself as 'Sir Jim'.
And John Omlor would have us believe that is just a coincidence? Yeah, right.
The fact is that the two are related, there is no escaping it. No amount of self congratulation and back slapping will escape that.
The lengths to which you will go is getting ridiculous John, now we are supposed to believe that someone called James wasn't called 'Jim' by his friends, family, associates etc.
Sir James. Sir Jim. Deal with it, John, get therapy if you have to, but deal with it.
And now it is Philip's turn to disappoint me ...
"A dot of ink under the glue as proof that the diary is old? Imagine this you are sticking photos into an album and you find ink (and writing on the pages). What would you do? Read it. So if the ink was there before the glue it was only a dot and the album was otherwise empty or the writing was boring and consisted of nothing concerning Jack.."
How on earth can you be in a position to make that statement, Philip? None of us know where the diary was or who had or what they did with it before 1940. Therefore you can't comment on what they would or would have done upon having viewed writing about Jack the Ripper. Face it, the dot of ink is old, you didn't even bother arguing against that point. Therefore the rest of the diary is old too.
And let's put this Sir Jim/Sir James thing to bed for the last time.
Caz raised the point that servants may refer to masters as 'Sir' mockingly. I would go further than that. In England in the 1800's, children had to refer to their own fathers as 'Sir', so I daresay that it was required of servants too.
But John still has a problem with James being shortened to Jim.
And that is because he cannot even begin to come up with an idea as to how a group of "forgers" could have had a peek into the vaults at Wyoming from their homes in Liverpool.
Either the forgers went to Wyoming or the diary is genuine.
The forgers didn't go to Wyoming.
Regards
Peter - (still laughing at 'Sir James could have come from Sir James Fitzjames Stephen', when our chief suspect was called ...err, James).
P.S. And it bears mentioning that John's other little pet theory on "Sir James" does not hold water either, as the writer of the diary was not inspired to call himself 'Sir Jim' after a fantasy sequence involving him dreaming of being knighted by Queen Victoria. Indeed he uses the term 'Sir Jim' twice before he even mentions Queen Victoria. |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 12:50 pm | | Peter,
Just so you know, continuing to insult someone who has publicly stated their intentions to ignore furthur provocation is considered harassment according to Casebook policy. Insulting someone just to goad them into replying to you is childish as well as harassing.
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 06:39 pm | | Hello everyone.
There is not a single document anywhere where anyone ever uses the phrase "Sir Jim" to refer to the real James Maybrick.
There is no reason whatsoever that the forgers had to see anything at all from Wyoming.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 06:53 pm | | Hi Peter,
I keep reading on the message board how James Maybrick was referred by others as "Jim" which seems plausible.
However, when John Omlor cites that there is no contemporary documentation for this it seems to me that the burden of proof has been shifted.
I have no dog in this fight because I don't think the answer to this controversy strengthens or weakens the case for or against the diary.
Yet if, as some maintain, James Maybrick was referred as "Sir James" where is the evidence other than speculation?
Rich |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 07:12 pm | | Hi Rich,
What Peter once wrote above was:
"The document in question is the letter that PHF found at Wyoming that proved Maybrick was referred to as Sir Jim."
This, of course, is simply and blatantly a lie. The letter PHF found has someone referring to Maybrick once using the phrase "Sir James." The phrase "Sir Jim" never appears in the letter or anywhere else and is never found anywhere in any document by anyone. That phrase exists only in the bogus diary.
Consequently, the letter Peter mentions not only does not "prove" that "Maybrick was referred to as Sir Jim" (Peter's blatant lie) -- it isn't even evidence that Maybrick was referred to as "Sir Jim." The phrase never even appears. And it is also not even evidence that Maybrick ever even once heard the phrase "Sir James" from anyone in reference to him. And it is most certainly not evidence that the real James Maybrick ever called himself Sir anything.
In fact, no evidence has ever been discovered anywhere on the planet earth that even suggests that the real James Maybrick ever called himself "Sir James" or "Sir Jim" (the latter appearing in the bogus diary).
This is what I mean by desperately stitching post facto desires and exclusively interpreted history onto a reading of a fairly simple text. It's all an illusion. What actually would need to exist, the documented material that actually would constitute at least some evidence that the real James Maybrick or anyone else on earth ever used the phrase "Sir Jim," has never been found anywhere by anyone, ever.
That is the state of the facts.
Anything else is simply a lie or an invalid argument.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 11:54 pm | | Hi John,
You have captured in your last post what my understanding happens to be about the letter.
I would simply ask Peter, or anyone else who advocates the position that there is a document in which a Maybrick contemporary referred to him as "Sir Jim," to please produce the evidence - complete with a verifiable source.
Perhaps what is really being stated is that there is a letter with a "Sir James" reference and that some propound that "Sir James" and "Sir Jim" are the same thing and should therefore be accepted as such.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 12:01 am | | Hi John,
I understand your frustration with regard to the diary and some who cling to the belief in its authenticity despite the evidence.
It really is useless to try to dissuade those wedded to the theory that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
I have asked several times what fact or development would ever dissuade the diary supporters from their position.
In jest, in an earlier post, I asked that if those who produced the diary even admitted to faking it would the diary supporters then drop their fanatical support for the theory.
But, alas, that actually happened and that didn't seem to affect their beliefs at all.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 01:47 am | | I'd like to make one tiny observation on the foregoing, especially with reference to Peter Wood being called a liar.
What we have is somebody in Liverpool in 1987 deciding to have James Maybrick refer to himself as 'Sir Jim'. There was no evidence that he called himself this, was called it by anyone else, or was called anything even remotely like it by anybody at all. It was a complete invention, inspired by goodness knows what; maybe there was a horse called Sir Jim running at Folkestone that day. Yet later research in some archives the forger never saw and probably never knew existed produced a document from which it seems that at least once a member of his staff called James Maybrick 'Sir James'.
It has to be acknowledged that 'Sir Jim' and 'Sir James' is about as close as it gets. We canexplain why the forger thought to call Maybrick 'Sir Jim', of course, and we can think of reasons why he may have been called 'Sir James' at least once by a member of his staff, and we can argue very convincingly that 'sir' was a commonplace term of respect and its use by staff and forger alike shouldn't occasion any surprise. It nevertheless remains pretty remarkable – in the sense of being worthy of remark - that of all the names his staff could have called him ('his lordship', 'his nibbs' and so on) that we have at least one instance of him being called 'Sir James', the diminutive of which the diarist applies to Maybrick. This doesn't prove the 'diary' genuine, of course, but I suspect that what has impressed Robert Smith, Peter Wood, and others, is that it can be shown that James Maybrick was called anything remotely like Sir Jim.
I think one should respect this, whether one agrees with it or not, because we have what almost every contributor to these Boards believes to be an obvious bit of slap-dash fiction thrown together one Sunday afternoon in front of the gas fire over a mug of tea, yet instead of research producing detail after detail that weakens the fiction, research has produced material that perhaps strengthens it: for example, instead of proving no evidence of a connection between Maybrick and the East End, as one would expect, it produces evidence that he could have had a basic – and maybe even an intimate - working knowledge of the area. And when faced with a particularly obscure quotation, it turns out that the author, Crashaw, had links with Whitechapel.
None of this proves the 'diary' genuine. As a matter of fact it doesn't prove anything at all. But one can see why people are arrested by it, even unto making claims for it which don't conform to the strict letter of the absolute truth.
PS.
Hi Rich. Don't forget. though, that although Mike Barrett confessed, the confession was retracted. Also, insofar as the confession could be tested, it has not been substantiated - the auctioneers have stated that Mike's account of their sales procedure is wrong. And also don't forget that thus far we have precious litle evidence that Mike was the actual forger or participated in the forgery or even knew the 'diary' was a forgery. It isn't true to say the 'forger' confessed. It's as wrong to say that as it is for Peter to say that there is evidence of Maybrick being called 'Sir Jim'. It isn't supported by any evidence. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 07:27 am | | Hi Paul,
I appreciate your generous reading of the argument concerning the Laramie letter, but you're missing my point.
Here's exactly what Peter wrote:
"I am going to concede one very minor point to you there John, for we can't prove that the term 'Sir Jim' was associated with JM in 1888, but we can prove that it was associated with JM by someone who was present in his house in 1888. The document in question is the letter that PHF found at Wyoming that proved Maybrick was referred to as Sir Jim. The letter was by Florence Aunspaugh. Remember her, John? She visited Maybrick's house in 1888." (my emph.)
Please note, Paul, that the "it" referred to in the first sentence is clearly "the term 'Sir Jim.'" Peter himself writes the phrase out. And the second sentence says explicitly that the letter PHF found in Wyoming proves that "Maybrick was referred to as Sir Jim."
There is nothing in this quote or anywhere in the post that contains it about "Sir James" possibly being like "Sir Jim" or that the letter mentions "Sir James" or anything of the sort. Peter's claim above was specifically that someone who was present in the Maybrick house in 1888 associated the phrase "Sir Jim" with the real James Maybrick.
This is simply a lie. He knew it was a lie when he wrote it. And I still believe he wrote it in a deliberate attempt to mislead.
And his further claim in this paragraph is not that "Sir James" is as close to "Sir Jim" as we can get since there is no "Sir Jim" anywhere to be found, but it's close enough. His claim is that the letter proves that someone in 1888 referred to Maybrick as "Sir Jim." I'm sorry, Paul, but that is a simple and carefully crafted lie and not merely a misinterpretation or wishful thinking.
I think there is a line, and when one's prose crosses that line one stops interpreting the facts and speculating and postulating about how the evidence might be read and one starts simply and deliberately misstating the facts simply for personal gain. It's the difference between those who try and interpret the horror and the confused history of the Holocaust and those who misstate and misuse the historical evidence for their own purposes to claim the Holocaust never happened. Those who do the former are historians. Those who do the latter are deniers. Paragraphs such as the one I've cited above, which simply and blatantly and deliberately misrespresent the evidence which exists, fall into the latter category.
Attention should be paid when that line is crossed.
I stand by what I wrote,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 09:25 am | | Hi John
I do and did understand the very valid point you were making and I agree with it and with your reasons for making it, and I know that the Aunspaugh letter doesn’t refer to James Maybrick as ‘Sir Jim’. I can’t comment on whether I think Peter Wood was wittingly crafting a lie or not because I haven’t been following the exchanges on these Boards very closely of late, but it seemed to me important to not let Peter’s lie or exaggeration obscure the point that the Aunspaugh letter does show that he was at least once called ‘Sir James’. What Peter Wood said is wrong. Maybe he knew he was wrong. Maybe he just didn't pay enough attention to the precision of what he was writing, or maybe he simply expressed himself badly in the belief that we'd understand what he meant. But you are completely correct when you say that there isn't anywhere anything that remotely suggests that James Maybrick called himself 'Sir Jim' or anything like it or that he knew he was called it or anything like it by anyone else, or that he would have otherwise wished it, liked it or approved of it. Nevertheless, a member of his staff did - or appears to have - called him 'Sir James' and the diarist did call him 'Sir Jim' and that whilst there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Maybrick was regularly called 'Sir James' or required that he be called 'Sir James' or wanted or liked or in any sense whatsoever approved of being called 'Sir James', there is similarly no proof that he didn't. In fact, the Aunspaugh papers allow for the possibility that he was called 'Sir James' and might have referred to himself by the diminutive and familiar 'Sir Jim' – like it or not, historical conclusions are often based on such slender ‘evidence’ when there is a paucity of detailed documentation. Arguably, then, the Aunspaugh papers could suggest that Maybrick did refer to himself as Sir Jim, whereas there is no document suggesting that he did not do so or that he was called something else or called himself something else.
But Peter remains wrong in what he said. And I in no way wish it to be supposed that anything in the foregoing is supposed to suggest in any way whatsoever that I think the ‘diary’ is genuine. I simply and merely note that the diarist refers to himself as ‘Sir Jim’ and that a document founf in Wyoming could slenderly support this.
Or not. :-) |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 09:48 am | | Hi Peter,
If you found a ledger with writing in it in your attic, what you do with it? Start sticking photos into without reading the writing? Or would you read it? If what you read seemed weird you would talk about, wouldn't you? So the ink was there before the photos only proves that the ledger was used before the author wrote in in.
It is the age of the gum which is intersting, not the fact that ink is under the gum. (Because even Maybrick may have been so hard up to have been forced to use an used ledger).
I have quickly been through Harrison/Feldmann and found no description of the empty pages. But it would be these pages that could show what the ledger was used for beforehand.
I will argue against the diary being old, because I believe it is old. All I have problems with is the authorship (as somewhere up above I remarked on - which you did not comment on).
Philip |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 10:21 am | | Hi, Paul and John:
John, I believe I have to side with Paul in acknowledging that the pro-diarists are "impressed" with the "Sir James" appelation credited to having been used by one of the Maybrick household being similar to the "Sir Jim" used in the Diary as shown in the Aunspaugh papers in Laramie. This is not, as you, Paul, and I agree, proof of anything, but still, it is a curious coincidence. Now, I regret that the bad feeling has arisen between you and Peter Wood, but I don't think Peter was consciously lying. Let's say he is letting his enthusiasm get the better of him and his post was sloppily written. While you tend to be very careful with your words Peter often is not. John, you have brought a delightful clear-headedness to these boards and a very useful analysis of the evidence in relation to the Diary. It is clear that you and Peter have very different criteria on what constitutes evidence and that your approach differs not only from that of Peter Wood but from any of the other Diary advocates that we can name, for example, Shirley Harrison, Paul Feldman, Melvyn Fairclough, and Robert Smith, each of whom has been known to hold up a piece of "evidence" of the genuineness of the Diary that we skeptics would not accept as evidence. I hope these thoughts help.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 10:41 am | | Hi Paul,
I think the record of the past few months strongly supports my reading of Peter's prose in this case and its deliberate desire to mislead. But I am willing to let that record and my accusation stand and end the discussion there.
I still do not believe that the Aunspaugh lettter in any way supports the possibility or even suggests the possibility that Maybrick ever referred to himself as Sir Jim. I do not even believe it can properly or responsibly be considered material evidence that anyone ever even used that particular phrase. Using it as evidence in the case of the diary's authenticity seems to me much more like excessively wishful thinking and creative reading than responsible historical analysis no matter how much of the former is sometimes inscribed into the latter around here.
But most importantly, despite Peter's repeated and nonsensical claim, I do not believe it is any way necessary whatsoever for our forgers to have had to have seen anything at all from Laramie for them to have written the words that appear in the diary.
His claim that either the forgers knew of this letter or there were no forgers is patently and demonstrably absurd. It remains perfectly and practically possible that our forgers could have never heard of Laramie or the Aunspaugh letter and still written exactly what appears in the diary.
There is not a word anywhere in the fake diary that had to have come from Laramie.
But I believe we agree about at least this completely.
Thanks,
--John
PS: Chris, our posts crossed, but thanks. I'll let the matter stand here. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 11:03 am | | Hi All,
Adding to Paul's PS to Rich concerning Mike's 'confession', there is actually no evidence anywhere on the planet that he was the actual forger. And if one asks anyone who has met or knows Mike for their opinion on whether he could have composed/penned any part of the diary, they will immediately respond, "no no, a thousand times no” - that is, immediately after they’ve stopped choking over the suggestion.
And the only evidence that Mike participated in the forgery (which consists of the fact that he produced, in late 1994, a book containing the Crashaw quote) appears to be heavily outweighed by a mass of circumstantial evidence pointing to him not knowing if the diary is a forgery or not.
And let's not forget that in Mike's various confessions, he has only claimed to have forged the diary himself, or dictated the text for Anne to forge - neither of which seem to have a cat in hell's chance of being true.
Hi John,
My point about ‘Sir James/Jim’ was that you let Chris George’s quite remarkable speculation pass, when he suggested the hoaxer might have got his idea for ‘Sir Jim’ from Sir James, the judge at Florie’s trial. Yet you keep reminding us, quite rightly, about the dangers of reading an anonymous text, and indulging in such speculation about the writer.
There is no evidence anywhere on the planet that the author of the diary chose Sir Jim for the reason Chris suggested. But we do know from the historical record that Florence Aunspaugh remembered Maybrick being referred to as ‘Sir James’ by Alice Yapp. We can only speculate about how often the nickname was used and whether Maybrick would have been aware of it, or secretly liked to think of himself as Sir James, or shortened it, just as his wife Florie did, to Jim. As you say, the evidence we have falls short of giving us a single example of the historical Maybrick actually calling himself that in writing – which is, I guess, hardly surprising, short of finding a genuine diary of his, of course.
Interestingly, looking again at Florence A’s memories of Sir James, I’m reminded of her description of ‘two unfortunate features in his make-up’. Apart from imagining himself afflicted with every ailment under the sun, he had a ‘morose, gloomy disposition and extremely high temper’. And he was, according to Flo, an arsenic addict who ‘craved it like a narcotic fiend’. He said once to her mother that ‘they only give me enough to aggravate and worry me and make me always craving for more’. Flo saw Maybrick angered on ‘several occasions, and twice he was furious’, the second time threatening to kick the nurse down the stairs and ‘break every God damn bone’ in her.
Good subject for someone to pick if they are thinking about writing the diary of Jack the Ripper - this arsenic-coated Sir James, who wavers between feelings of affection and sympathy for sweet young things and undisguised contempt and anger towards the grown-up variety of bitches and whores. And a good subject to pick considering his various East End connections. Even better to pick him if you don’t know about all these things beforehand.
I do understand what you are trying to explain to me about reading anonymously written texts and what we can or can’t infer about the writer. But you still keep missing my basic point when you write things like:
‘I see little or no sign in the pages of this document of advanced or professional or especially learned psychological or literary or linguistic or historical sophistication.’
If I were to write 63 pages, and try to pass them off as the work of a serial killer, putting down thoughts in his diary relating to crimes he has committed, I wouldn’t be aiming to show any literary or linguistic sophistication, for example. But I would be aiming to show some knowledge of what a serial killer might be expected to do or not do, think or not think, say or not say, write or not write. Otherwise I would risk having every ‘expert’ in the field, who is actually paid to know all these things, smugly pointing out from day one, and starting with paragraph one, page one, examples where I show myself up to be sadly lacking, as of course I am, in the basics. And that is precisely what I would expect to happen in my case and would be totally amazed if it didn’t, because by its very nature such a document would tend to invite ‘experts’ to err on the side of scepticism. (The real author only has to own up for the ‘experts’ to be shown up.) Yet I have been asked to believe that Mike or Anne Barrett did much the same thing, and still we wait, a decade later, for the experts to show where their work lacks the basics, as they surely would mine, in the way I have outlined above.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 12:39 pm | | Hi Caz,
To be honest, I did not take Andy and Sue's original post or Chris's response about the coincidence of the trial judge's name all that seriously. I did not think it was worth discussing in detail since, as you rightly say, there is obviously no evidence that this had anything at all to do with the diary in any way and, frankly, I wasn't at all sure than anyone was really saying it did or even offering it as any more than a half-serious thought of the moment, complete with smiley faces. But you are certainly correct in what you say about it not being evidence of anything. (In any case, there is certainly no comparison between the extensive and systematic campaign of misdirection, nonsense, and unsupportable, misleading speculation waged here by Peter Wood and Chris George's single post in response to what I believe was Andy and Sue's joke.)
And regarding Aunspaugh's memories -- that James had a bad arsenic habit and gloomy disposition and a nasty and even violent temper -- the forgers certainly would not have needed Aunspaugh or the Laramie records to know that -- those are some of the first and most often mentioned things about James that you find in any book on the Maybrick case. So there is still no reason at all to think the forgers ever saw anything in Laramie and no reason at all to think they would have needed to in order to write what they did. There is not a word anywhere in the diary that could have only come from Laramie. The forgers could have very easily "known about all of these things beforehand." And because these things were part of the readily available historical record, the fact that they also are confirmed in Laramie is hardly surprising or significant.
Meanwhile, I'm not asking you to believe that Mike and Anne did or could have done anything. But I am telling you that there is very little in the 63 pages of fragmented entries we actually have that would allow anyone to say one way or the other anything about what the authors of this text might or might not have known about psychopathology or real serial killers and I cannot find anything in the book that could not have come from a relatively elementary, cliched, and common familiarity with the omnipresent serial killers of books and film. There are no psychological inconsitencies in this book perhaps because there is hardly any real psychology in this book whatsoever and the fact is that, because of the nature of reading such a text, the experts can tell us nothing about what that might mean concerning our authors, except that they were at least literate adults who might have had a basic familiarity with certain popular conventions from books and films. And that could be any of us, including you, Caz. And no expert would be able to point at your text and say, "Ah ha!"
In my professional opinion, these written pages are not that complicated nor do they offer that much that can actually be validly analyzed in this sort of way.
And, incidentally, I think there are plenty of ways that the diary is, in fact, "sadly lacking." Please see the reading on the "Diary Text" board for numerous specifics in this regard.
Thanks and all the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 01:38 pm | | Hi John,
'The forgers could have very easily "known about all of these things beforehand."'
Sorry, you misunderstood my use of 'all'. I meant that, in addition to whatever a 1989 forger could have picked up about Maybrick that led him to think he could turn him into the ripper, the various East End connections came along apparently unbidden to help him out even further. Indeed, using your own argument, the forger didn't know about all these things beforehand (ie including the Whitechapel connections), otherwise he'd surely have mentioned them in the diary, because, in your opinion, that's what the real ripper would have done, and, also in your opinion, that's what a forger, knowing about them, would have done too.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 01:59 pm | | Ally first:
"Just so you know, continuing to insult someone who has publicly stated their intentions to ignore furthur provocation is considered harassment according to Casebook policy. Insulting someone just to goad them into replying to you is childish as well as harassing.
Really? And how about continually calling someone a liar? Don't you think you should pick up on that too?
To anyone who is remotely interested ...every person I have ever known who was called James also gets called Jim, it's just a basic fact of life. Therefore when I wrote this:
"The document in question is the letter that PHF found at Wyoming that proved Maybrick was referred to as Sir Jim."
I was being deadly serious. I wasn't lying, I wasn't being sloppy and nor was I getting over excited and sloppy in my prose.
I meant it.
If you continue to deny that Sir James bears a relation to Sir Jim then you are deluding yourself.
And please refrain from calling me a liar.
'Sir Jim' of the diary is extremely important to the diarist, so much so that he mentions it thirty times. The references start before his fantasy sequence involving Queen Victoria knighting him, therefore you have yet to come up with a remotely convincing explanation of why the diarist should be so heavily reliant on 'Sir Jim'.
And it is not I who is being sloppy, for it is not I that claims "a member of Maybrick's staff" referred to him as 'Sir Jim'.
That reference came from someone who was eight years old when she visited Battlecrease House the daughter of a friend of James Maybrick - Florence Aunspaugh. |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 02:06 pm | | Philip
Thanks for the questions.
Just to clarify - do you believe the diary is old?
Thanks
Peter. |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 02:23 pm | | Peter,
If the shoe fits...
Of course John can't hold to his own decision to ignore what you post so the claim against harassment doesn't hold. What I posted was prior to his response to you in which he called you a liar. However, a person who manipulates truth to achieve their desired outcome can be called a liar. Whether you are one is something for your own conscious to decide. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 03:15 pm | | Hello all, including Paul and Chris,
You've just seen Peter Wood quote himself:
"The document in question is the letter that PHF found at Wyoming that proved Maybrick was referred to as Sir Jim."
And then seen Peter write:
"I was being deadly serious. I wasn't lying, I wasn't being sloppy and nor was I getting over excited and sloppy in my prose.
"I meant it."
I no longer have to say anything to prove my case concerning Peter or defend my original accusation.
All the best,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 03:19 pm | | Hi Caz,
Ah. OK. I thought "these things" referred to the things you cited from Aunspaugh's memories.
Of course, there's no reason a forger would have needed to know any of the other things mentioned in Robert's research given what actually does appear written in the diary.
Sorry I misunderstood.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 04:04 pm | | Hi Paul,
My reference to the admission of forgery was partially in jest. I understand that it was retracted.
You have laid out the facts in your usual concise and even-handed way.
I try not to argue with those who support the diary's authenticity because no matter how many descrepencies or anachronisms are detailed there is always a rationalization.
Rich |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 04:39 pm | | | I have known many people to state a forged article is genuine. Never have I known a person to have the genuine article worth its weight in gold only to say that it is a forgery!!!! PERHAPS SOMEONE WOULD CARE TO ENLIGHTEN ME. As for Mike withdrawing his statement that the diary was forged etc, he did so to protect himself.However he still stuck with the same basic story in many debates after that statement was withdrawn. Nothing changed he simply withdrew a signed statement.Mike's character was said to be very good when the diary came to light by those with an interest in the diary. When he said it was a forgery these same people said he was a drunk and could not be trusted. The truth of the matter was that money was invested and many people were paid in relation to the diary. Things were at the stage when there was no going back when Mike threw a spanner in the works. In for a penny in for a pound as the saying goes.This situation has not been honest and it has not been above board and suffice to state I have known criminals with more scruples.A great deal has gone on behind the scenes which many people are unaware of in relation to this matter. It is about time some people started telling the truth instead of putting money first.Any ripper expert who states the diary is genuine or enforces it are a disgrace to the subject and are not fit to be respected. They either dont know what they are talking about or they put money before morals.I am not referring to people with a genuine belief in the diary. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 05:36 pm | | Caz--Perhaps you could enlighten me to what exactly constitutes this weighty "circumstantial evidence" pointing to Mike not knowing the diary was a forgery. Which one of his tales constitutes this evidence?
And what of Mike's use of an alias when he first sought to sell the diary?
Or Mike buying a genuine blank Victorian diary several weeks before he contacted Crew?
You find the notion of Mike forging the Maybrick diary laughable. But isn't there a problem here, for those who wish to take Anne Graham's story seriously?? Didn't she say that she gave Mike the diary so he could write a fictional story based on the diary? I presume, then, that she felt he had some literary skill. And...err...isn't that what most people consider the Maybrick diary to be...a fictional account of Maybrick being Jack the Ripper? And didn't Billy Graham loan Mike money to purchase a word processor so he might try a writing career?
Hmm....
None of this proves that Mike wrote the diary, of course. But Anne & Billy's actions seem a little odd in retrospect if Mike's literary skills are as laughable as you seem to believe. Oh, and of course we also have the detail that Mike hid the fact that he was a would-be writer from the early diary investigators. Strange detail for someone who believe the diary was genuine. All sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 06:00 pm | | Hi John
I wasn't at any time challenging your judgement of Peter as a liar, I merely observed that I wasn't in a position to have an opinion myself (which, of course, I can now, since Florence Aunspaugh did not say Maybrick was called or that he called himself 'Sir Jim'). I wrote because I thought the argument with Peter was obscuring the real point that it is remarkable that the research should have produced 'Sir James'. I don't, of course, suggest that it proves anything, but I can understand why some people would find it arresting.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 06:10 pm | | Thanks, Paul.
All the best,
--John |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 04:18 am | | To John Omlor:
How is life, Jack ?
Bye.Graziano. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 06:28 am | | Hi Peter,
YES, your honour :-))
Philip |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 07:29 am | | Fine, Graz.
Thanks for asking. Except no one ever calls me "Jack." They haven't since I was a small boy. Of course, none of that is relevant to the evidence that actually exists in this case.
Hello all,
One more thing about the appearance of the phrase "Sir Jim" in the diary’s text. It has been suggested around here that the phrase could not have been inspired by the idea of having the Maybrick character fantasize about being knighted by the Queen simply because the phrase appears in the diary before the fantasy does. This is, of course, utter nonsense.
Even an elementary understanding of the composition process for fiction teaches us that the forgers could certainly have had the idea of their James character imagining himself being knighted well before they actually worked it into the diary’s pages. In fact, they could have easily had that idea (and others) even before they started writing the entries out. And it is a commonplace in novels and other fictions for the characters or the work to make reference to things early on which are not fully explained until later in the book, when their origins are finally revealed. In fact, that is something of a literary cliché by now.
The argument that the phrase "Sir Jim" could not have been inspired by the idea of the knighthood fantasy only because the phrase appears in the finished text prior to the scene in which that fantasy is spelled out is simply absurd.
Indeed, the fact that the character refers to himself as "Sir Jim" and then, sometime later, tells the tale of the title's origins might very well be textual evidence of deliberate composition and creative foreknowledge that a real diary, improvised spontaneously and in sequence, could not have had. It might very well be read as signifying that there are forgers at work.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 08:47 am | | Hi John,
'Sir Jim' could have been inspired by the idea of a knighting fantasy. Then again, it need not have been. 'Maybrick' is obviously supposed to be thinking of himself as 'Jack the Ripper' ('Before I am finished all of England will know the name I have given myself. It is indeed a name to remember. It shall be, before long, on every persons lips within the land. Perhaps her gracious Majesty will become acquainted with it'), at the point where he wonders if the queen 'will honour me with a knighthood', and, suddenly seeing the joke, adds 'ha ha', and then starts calling himself 'Sir Jim' again. Couldn't that be 'textual evidence' of spontaneous and sequential improvisation?
Incidentally, no problem about that small misunderstanding earlier. But I would have written: 'Even better to pick him if you don’t know about any of these things beforehand', if that's what I'd meant.
Hi Ivor,
You wrote:
'As for Mike withdrawing his statement that the diary was forged etc, he did so to protect himself. However he still stuck with the same basic story in many debates after that statement was withdrawn. Nothing changed he simply withdrew a signed statement.'
Mike's initial confession was that he forged the diary all by himself. Later, and after hearing Anne's 'in the family story', he confessed that he composed the text but dictated it to Anne, who wrote it into the scrapbook. Later still, according to Melvin Harris, Mike claimed that he gave the Crashaw quote to Tony Devereux to use for the forgery. As far as I know Mike has never mentioned the name of Kane, nor claimed to be merely a handler/placer of a document forged by others. And you can't give reasons for Mike making or then withdrawing a statement because you are relying solely on Mike's word for those reasons.
I don't think you need worry about there being too many disgraceful ripper 'experts' about, who have stated that the diary is genuine because 'they put money before morals'. In fact, I can't think of a single example off-hand.
Hi RJ,
No, I'm not going to 'enlighten' you to what exactly constitutes this weighty "circumstantial evidence" pointing to Mike not knowing the diary was a forgery because it's all in the archives if you seriously need to be reminded - you were there, after all, when that particular debate was going round and round.
Ditto with Mike's alias and the little red herring - sorry, 1891 diary.
If you remain convinced that Mike's apparently painful ignorance about the forgers and the forgery must all be an act that has managed to fool the investigators who actually know the man; and that using a false name when first contacting the literary agency is deeply suspicious, while ordering the maroon diary, using his real name and address, and not thinking to specify either date or size, was for the purpose of transferring the text of the Maybrick diary to a more credible book; if you reamin convinced of these things, then no amount of reminding or 'enlightening' by me will change anything, and Ally will get cross and quite rightly so if I even try.
Then you presume that, because Anne said she gave Mike the diary so he could write a fictional story based on it, she must have felt he had some literary skill. And that if Billy Graham loaned Mike money to purchase a word processor so he might try a writing career, he must have felt the same. I could leave it to John O to explain to you why nothing of the sort can be presumed, but just in case he doesn't do so, I'll just ask you this. Why would Anne or Billy need to believe that Mike had any talent or skill, in order to want to help or encourage him, if writing was indeed an ambition of his? If a partner or close relative has been wasting all his time and money in the pub instead of pursuing the one interest that you know was enough in the past to keep him happily occupied, you try to steer him back to that interest, don’t you? Does it make much – any – difference whether you think his chances of making a success of it are 100% or practically zero? Would you only offer practical help and encouragement to a family member if you thought him capable of producing a bestseller? And if you knew he was kidding himself, and that he would never be able to do anything much beyond writing for his own personal enjoyment, would you tell him so? Or would you give up on him and do nothing, and just watch him go on destroying himself and his marriage?
'None of this proves that Mike wrote the diary, of course.'
At least we agree on that one.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 09:08 am | | Hi Caz,
No question. There is no reason why "Sir Jim" must have been inspired by the knighthood fantasy. But Peter's claim was that it could not have been, since the phrase appears before the scene in question. That claim, as I have demonstrated, is simply false.
The point is that there is nothing in the diary that could only have come from Laramie or from the real James. The forgers could very easily have written everything that appears in the diary's text without ever having heard of Laramie. And it remains quite possible, in fact, that the appearance of the phrase "Sir Jim" prior to the appearance of the knighthood scene might be the result of the created composition of a fiction and still have been inspired by the knighthood idea. But you are quite right to note that the earlier "Sir Jim" references, stemming from wherever the forgers first developed the idea (fantasy of knighthood or otherwise inspired conceit), could also return once the fantasy occurs, as a result of it. There is no way to say which possibility actually must be the case given the text we have.
I was only pointing out what remains quite possible, despite absurd claims to the contrary.
All the best,
--John
PS: I was going to say precisely what you did in response to RJ concerning the contradictory interpretations of Mike's actions that remain still available to us and the actual evidence of his direct participation in the creation of the book, which remains still unavailable to us. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 12:32 pm | | Hi John,
Thanks for the clarification. Earlier, when you wrote:
'Indeed, the fact that the character refers to himself as "Sir Jim" and then, sometime later, tells the tale of the title's origins...',
I was getting a bit worried that you were already assuming that it was fact that the knighthood fantasy was where the title 'Sir Jim' originated from, in order to suggest this was yet more evidence of forgers at work.
As you now confirm, we still haven't established how and when the name 'Sir Jim' entered the mind of the diary's author.
And yes, of course, if actual evidence of Mike's direct participation in the creation of the book were to become available to us (or indeed, if anyone had actual evidence proving the diary ink to be Diamine, or even just modern), we wouldn't need to discuss 'Sir Jim' at all, or accuse people of telling lies about the name.
Just imagine if such evidence is available to someone who is watching us now, as we go round in circles. I wonder what we'd like to do to them, eh? 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 12:42 pm | | Hi Caz, Hi John,
excuse me butting in but concerning Caz's last sentence: I bet that there is somebody out with evidence either way but is too scared to come forward with it. Somebody (and I don't meen anybody on this board) KNOWS the truth and can prove it. The whole story with Mike and Anne has scared them off. Pity really, but then what we do instead....
Cheers,
Philip |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 01:00 pm | | John--So you are agreeing with Caz that there is abundant "circumstantional evidence" that Mike Barrett doesn't know where the diary came from?
This is astonishing.
What evidence is there?
What you all seem to be avoiding is the possibility that those close to Mike during the investigation [Feldy, Shirley, Keith] were simply wrong about Mike's alleged ignorance.
The Sphere episode is a damn good indication that this , in fact, was the case. Shirley Harrison sends Mike to the library for research and he comes up with the Crashaw quote. But lo and behold, Alan Gray's testimony proves that Barrett had the quote all along. So who is the dupe here?
And I'll never believe that Mike's use of an alias means anything other than that he was up to no damn good....and knew it.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 01:12 pm | | Hi RJ,
So why didn't Mike use an alias when he was, according to you, placing an order for an alternative book for the forgery? If the book had proved suitable, how would he have argued against the book firm's proof that he'd been up to no good, as soon as they discovered the use to which their fulfilled order had been put by Mr. Michael Barrett?
And how does Alan Gray's testimony prove that Mike knew the quote all along, as opposed to Mike's own admission to Shirley that he owned a book containing the quote all along?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 01:22 pm | | Hi RP
Whether those who have met Mike are right or wrong (and why should they be wrong, other than that you want them to be?), the hard fact is that Mike Barrett has never given a clear and coherent account of how the ‘diary’ was conceived and executed and what he has said hasn’t been substantiated (when it has been possible to test it; the auction house denied that their sales procedure matched Mike’s description, for example).
Tell me, what is it that you find so hard to accept in the idea that Mike Barrett was either an unwitting patsy used by the forgers to place the ‘diary’ or otherwise came into possession of it without knowing anything of its background? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 02:13 pm | | | Caroline, When I refer to Mike sticking to the basic story I mean just that ie,the diary is not genuine. Also strokes have been used by certain people in relation to this diary which you and many others are not aware of. Unscrupulous people have attempted to use foul methods when it comes to pushing the diary. This is one reason why the diary has caused so much ill feeling as far as some people are concerned. I know for a fact that back stabbing, and lying has been going on, not to mention the foul efforts by some who have attempted to discredit others opposed to the diary.And all this can be traced back to one man. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 03:09 pm | | Caz--I don't know, in fact, that Mike didn't use an alias when ordering the book. He may or may not have--or he may have had no choice in the matter. I only know that Mike used his own name when purchasing the book--several weeks later-- and after he decided not to use it [if he ever did intend to use it.] So it's not really clear that Mike would have left a 'paper trail', though you and John seem eager to argue that this is the case. It might be true, but I don't see it as being all that clear-cut. Besides, if this was nothing but an innocent act of research it is certainly an odd one, and one which Mike stayed very quiet about-- until he was in the 'confession' mode. The purchase itself is what I find suspicious.
To your second question. There is no difference, of course. But the point is that it shows that Mike was quite willing to put on a charade about the library. It shows that even after his "confession", Mike was eager for the pro-diarists to believe that he still thought the diary was genuine. More importantly, it still leaves us with the unpleasant and unlikely fact that the appearance of the Crashaw quote in the Maybrick diary is nothing but an odd coincidence.
Paul--It's a fair question. I concede that Mike's motives are impossible to fathom. I concede that Mike has never given a "coherent account" of the forgery. I also didn't mean to come across quite so forcefully in suggesting that Shirley or anyone esle was 'duped' by Mike. It's reasonable to be skeptical of Mike's various statements. I condede that.
But the short answer to your question is this: I find it hard to accept because the alternative is even harder to accept. If Mike was a dupe, it leaves a whole slough of problems. As you know, I think the diary was recently composed--around 1990. But if Mike was a dupe, wouldn't Anne Graham had to have been involved? Particularly if one believes the Crashaw quote came from the Barrett household? Anne was the one holding down the full-time job, and "keeping her head down". Just as a matter of logistics, how could Anne have created the Maybrick diary without Mike's knowledge? And why would she have risked passing it on to Mike through Devereux---a man she barely knew? What would her motive have been? It doesn't seem likely. Barrett was the one with time on his hands. And he was the one calling the shots. He seems to be the one primarily milking the diary for what it was worth. Besides, I feel there is some legitimate indication that Anne was genuinely upset by the initial publishing of the Maybrick diary. That's why I hold to the theory that the diary came through Mike, as unlikely as this seems to so many.
But let me change gears. Just for the sake of argument, let me suggest the following to those who wish to argue that the Maybrick diary is an old document. The skeptics are very set in their ways. Just as a bit of advice, to get the critic's attention, someone will need to come up with one or more of the following:
1. Evidence that chloroacetamide was used in ink before the modern era.
2. Evidence that there were two murders in Manchester at the appropriate time.
3. An explanation by Drs. Wilde and Turgoose of how they determined the darkened brass particles in the watch were "old", and a better description of precisely which scatches on the watch contained these particles.
4. Evidence of a Mrs. Hammersmith.
Something along these lines will turn some heads. But the current arguments aren't going to convince the skeptics. There are simply too many indications that the diary is a recent forgery, and Anne and Mike have simply made too many conflicting statements. Cheers, RP
|
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 06:07 pm | | Hi RJ,
I am pretty much fine with most of what has been said here today, both ways, except when you say to me:
"So you are agreeing with Caz that there is abundant 'circumstantional evidence' that Mike Barrett doesn't know where the diary came from?"
I don't believe I ever actually said that. At least, I hope not. I do not believe there is "abundant circumstantial evidence" either way. In fact, I'll be so bold as to assert that there is not what I would call "abundant circumstantial evidence" either way.
I think that Mike's actions at and around the time that the diary appeared at Doreen's office and thereafter are suspicious and contradictory, but whether this is because he was involved somehow in creating the thing or because he had no idea where the thing came from and he was just trying to do whatever he thought at the time would keep him in the money loop or because he was doing whatever he thought at the the time would piss off Paul Feldman or whether it was because he is a habitual liar and a drunk and no matter how well-meaning he might be, his behavior is simply never going to make any sense at all, I don't know.
Is Mike capable, was Mike capable of writing these sixty-three pages or helping to write them? I don't know. Was Anne? I don't know.
Is there some evidence and some reason to think that this book might have been written during the twentieth century? Yes.
Is there any real evidence at all or any valid reason at all to think that this document existed during anything but the 20th, and now 21st centuries? No.
Is there anything ever discovered anywhere on the planet that links this book in any way to the real James Maybrick? Absolutely not.
Is there good, solid textual evidence to suspect that this book is a forgery written in the twentieth century? I believe there is.
Is there good, solid evidence of some sort to even suspect that this book was written while the real James Maybrick was alive or to even suspect that the real James Maybrick wrote it? Absolutely not. There is none. Anywhere.
Who wrote this book? I don't know. Why did they write it? I don't know. Does a significant amount of evidence concerning these two questions exist, enough to allow us to begin to postulate an answer in some historically responsible way? Not yet.
That's the best I can do.
The book is a forgery. And when you say "Anne and Mike have simply made too many conflicting statements," I agree with you completely. But I am not prepared to say that there is any solid evidence that they actively participated in this forgery. Not yet, anyway.
That's all I am willing to conclude at this point.
All the best,
--John
PS: I agree that the Crashaw quote and the page in the Sphere Guide remain the best material evidence produced in this case so far. |
|
|
|
|
