Archive through 24 April 2002

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through 24 April 2002

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: TIME FOR A RE-VALUATION II: Archive through 24 April 2002

Author: Guy Hatton Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 06:26 am
Peter (B)- NO. But you probably knew that already. Cheers Guy
Author: Philip C. Dowe Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 06:46 am
Peter (B) Another surpise: NO! Philip
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 08:53 am
Tee Vee, You might want to look into the history of the Littlechild letter and how carefully it has been verified and established before you compare it to the diary. Also, it is not only the complete lack of any verifiable or reliable provenance whatsoever and the historical difficulties with some of the materials that make the diary suspect -- the text itself is full of problems (Richard Crashaw?!), the handwriting does not even come close to matching that of the real James Maybrick, and the behavior of those who brought it forward also throws the book's claims to authenticity into serious doubt. A thorough and responsible investigation into the book reveals no evidence anywhere that allows us to think that it is anything but a fake. The diary cannot be linked in any way whatsoever with its alleged author or even placed in any way in his lifetime. This is, in fact, the exact opposite of the Littlechild letter and other verified historical documents. These are serious and important differences. --John
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 08:56 am
Hi Peter (B), No. And like Paul, I have stated my opinion many many times. Happy now? Love, Caroline Anne Morris
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 10:13 am
Hi, Peter Wood: I join Mike Conlon in challenging your assertion that Dr. Francis J. Tumblety was not mentioned as a Ripper suspect before the Littlechild letter of 1913. He was mentioned as a suspect in newspapers of 1888 and again in 1903 on the occasion of his death. I have studied those newspaper reports as part of my investigation into Tumblety, so there is no question that the man was discussed as a suspect of the day and that he is no latter-day suspect. Best regards Chris George P.S. To Paul, I like your analogy of Peter Wood's stand to the stand of the British 24th Regiment of Foot at Rorke's Drift in the epic Stanley Baker film Zulu of 1965. It is unfortunate that so many of us are unable to follow Wood's Drift!
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 11:23 am
Hi All, What is obviously needed is a written record by Alan Gray, that shows unequivocally that Mike was talking to him about the copy of vol.2 of the Sphere Guide being evidence of his involvement in forgery before 30th September 1994, the date on which he claimed, to others, that he first laid eyes on the 'O costly...' lines in a book other than the diary itself. It still makes absolutely no sense, even for Mike, to tell Shirley he found the lines in a library book and then go on to say he had owned the same book since 1989, if he already knew the full significance of the quote and its source, ie why it would be evidence for his involvement, as allegedly made known to Alan Gray in the first week of September. "None of you bloody scholars had a clue where to look." Well, unless Mike rang Melvin and told him that before 30th September 1994, I can�t see how that helps � we already know Mike was pleased with himself after that date for �finding� the quote. We still don�t know precisely when he found it, or precisely when he realised he had reason to be pleased with himself. Did his find show him to be a very clever fellow (like his words to Melvin imply), and also provide him with some �evidence� to help prove his forgery claims? One wonders why Mike thought he had gone one better than the �bloody scholars�, since he needed no clues where to look if he provided the quote for the forgery himself! It�s a great pity he didn�t ring Harold Brough instead, back in June 1994, and tell him, �All the bloody scholars will believe my claims because I can show them proof of how I arranged for �O costly�� to appear in the diary.� (Mike could easily have held back his 'proof' until he had arranged a deal, if he really didn't want to give Brough everything 'for nothing'.) All the lies and unsupported stories of how he obtained the scrapbook and the ink would not have been necessary. I can't see why it would be hard for anyone to see the problems here and admit they exist. Either Alan Gray has been able to produce an unambiguous written record dating from before the end of September or he hasn't. If not, it doesn't reflect badly on him, as has already been explained. But if not, why can't Melvin just come out and say so, instead of skirting round this lack of evidence as if it doesn�t really matter? Now, here's a little quote for everyone. I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions about it, hopefully before someone jumps in and reveals the source: �Killed a young girl today. It was fine and hot.� Any comments? Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 11:46 am
Hi, Caz: The quote shows the typical callousness of a killer in that the weather seems as important as the taking of life. It is a quote from an English murderer discussed by Krafft-Ebing: "Krafft-Ebing cites the case of Alton, a clerk in England, who lured a child into a thicket, and after a time returned to his office, where he made an entry in his note-book: 'Killed to-day a young girl; it was fine and hot.' The child was missed, searched for, and found cut into pieces. Many parts, and among them the genitals, could not be found. Alton did not show the slightest trace of emotion, and gave no explanation of the motive or circumstances of his horrible deed; he was executed." Quote from Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine by George M. Gould and Walter L. Pyle. Original Copyright 1896 by W.B. Saunders Co. Chris George P.S. Caz, you will have to get up pretty early in the morning to stump the panel!!!
Author: Raphael Aglietti Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 12:08 pm
I'll say .... NO Why? It's quite simple really. Why would JTR keep a diary? If so would it not be filled with inane ramblings? Or perhaps writings representing feelings of delusion. The serial killer may beg for attention but that is done at his crimes while he is alive. They, do not on the whole leave a tailor-made manuscript for a hollywood movie. The key is that they want to be recognized when alive.
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 12:12 pm
Chris: And in the sentence quoted, everything depends on the punctuation. If it actually read: "�Killed, a young girl, today. It was fine and hot.� Then what you have is an item of news and a weather report!
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 12:25 pm
Hi Chris, I was hoping to get a few comments first from people who didn't know the source, as I explained. According to my source, the murder took place in July 1867 in Alton, Hampshire, and the killer's name was Fred Baker. His 'note-book' is described as a diary. Oh well, never mind. I wondered if the Maybrick diary's examples of changing abruptly from sentence to sentence, putting gruesome details next to mundane remarks, showed some knowledge of how a brutal killer might write in his private diary, that the average man in the street would be unlikely to possess. Or is this pretty much common knowledge, and the way we would all expect to see a killer's 'typical callousness' portrayed by a forger with a basic grasp of his subject? Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 12:55 pm
Hi, Caz: I don't think the fact that I have "blown" where this quote comes from detracts from the exercise you wished to conduct. In fact, I think it is useful to know that such a diary of a killer apparently existed. If the person behind the Diary hoax knew of the case cited by Krafft-Ebing, it might show that the person had studied the history of crime, mightn't it? That certainly opens other possibilities. It did strike me that the place Alton was meant and not a person's name so apparently either Krafft-Ebing or Gould and Pyle in their Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine got the case mixed up. Caz, might I ask what your source for this quote was? Best regards Chris George
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 01:00 pm
More grist for the mill, maybe-- 'Sweet Fanny Adams', or 'Sweet F.A.' I've often heard this come up in the UK musicpapers, or in songs by Suede and Love & Rockets. Let your curiosity now be satiated. "Fanny Adams was murdered and mutilated in 1812, her body cut into pieces and thrown into the River Wey at Alton in Hampshire. Her murderer, one Fred Baker, was publicly hanged in Winchester. Young Fanny Adams's name, given wide currency, was adopted by sailors to indicate a particularly distasteful meal, since Fanny Adams had been disposed of in a kettle. In fact, when kettles came into use in the British navy they were dubbed Fannys as were tins or cans of meat. There is no doubt that Fanny Adams is the basis for the military expression Sweet Fanny Adams, meaning something worthless or nothing at all. " Found at http://www.mydarkstar.com/word.htm
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 01:02 pm
Fanny Adams.... Stephen Adams?
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 01:54 pm
"Before the Littlechild letter was 'discovered' nobody mentioned Tumblety in the same breath as Jack the Ripper". I had to go back and check, but yes I did write it. Of this one I am guilty, sloppy posting. But come on guys, give me a break (which leg? I hear John Omlor asking) I was only trying to give Stewart the credit he deserves for raising Tumblety's profile. Oh lord, at the risk of being ridiculed again ... I accept the contemporaneous news reports that link Tumblety with the ripper case, but by and large Tumblety had become a 'forgotten' suspect, especially since the "discovery" of the McNaghten memoranda. Stewart brought him (back) to our attention. So read it again. Read what I wrote again. Did you ever hear of Tumblety before Stewart discovered the Littlechild letter? (Yeah yeah, Michael Conlon and John Omlor, I'll bet you two did). Paul Begg: You've missed the point of my post almost entirely, but you aren't the only one. Would you consider the following for one moment? What would be your reaction to the Littlechild letter if Mike Barrett had walked into a bookstore off the Old Kent Road and found it in the pages of an old book that he bought? What would your reaction to the diary be if it had come down through Stewart Evans' family? Can any of you even begin to see where I am going with this? Circumstance has fallen in favour of the Littlechild letter and very much against the diary. Taken out of the context of who found/discovered the documents in question, they are both important historical artefacts. But Tee Vee is right in a sense: I ask, has anyone ever done a handwriting comparison with the Littlechild letter? Let alone scraped infinitessimally small amounts of ink from it to be tested for chemicals. And Caz: I appreciate what you are trying to do back there, but it will fall on deaf ears. The psychology of the diary is very interesting. The experts' view is that from that perspective the diary is more than likely genuine. But don't expect John and Co. to even read those reports because they've had their fill of evidence. To John Omlor, I repeat "Crashaw was born two centuries before Maybrick", so his work existed in the century that Maybrick was alive. P.283 Shirley Harrison: "I wrote to the British Library to ask if a Victorian merchant would have known of Crashaw. R.J. Goulden replied on 25 March 1998: 'Several editions of Crashaw's poetry were in fact published between 1857 and 1887: a library of the poets in 1857, the works of Crashaw by John Russell Smith in 1858, a privately printed edition in 1872-3, the general Cassell's library edition of British poets in 1881 and another private edition in 1887". John, stop quoting Crashaw as a problem for the diary. He isn't. Regards Peter.
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 03:05 pm
In view of the inane comments regarding the Littlechild letter, and myself, I would appreciate it if I could be left out of this discussion. Tumblety was unknown to modern researchers and authors before I purchased the Littlechild letter and the American newspaper reports had not been found by modern researchers. The Littlechild letter led to the discovery of these newspaper reports. The letter formed part of a collection of many items belonging to the late George R. Sims which had been purchased by Eric Barton, the Richmond antiquarian dealer, around 1961. Its provenance is in no doubt. It is a typed letter with small handwritten annotations and postscript. This letter was fully tested for authenticity by Dr Audrey Giles the leading forensic document examiner at her laboratory and this included an ESDA test and a handwriting comparison. It was also examined by one of the country's leading paper historians and analysts, Peter Bower. It passed these tests with flying colours and Dr Giles pronounced that there was no reason whatsoever to doubt its authenticity. As Tumblety was unknown to any modern Ripper authorities or authors prior to the discovery of this letter it is a nonsense to say "Did you ever hear of Tumblety before Stewart discovered the Littlechild letter?" etc. It is even more nonsensical to say "Circumstance has fallen in favour of the Littlechild letter..." To compare this genuine historical document with a modern hoax is beyond belief.
Author: Michael Conlon Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 03:39 pm
Just a point of clarification. In pointing out to Mr. Wood that there was indeed historical support for the claim that Tumblety was contemporaneously linked to JTR (via news stories) I was attempting to counter his argument of equivalency between the viability of Tumblety as an evincible suspect, and Maybrick, who is not. At no time did I mean to suggest that Tumblety was known to 20th and 21st Century investigation prior to Mr. Evans outstanding research. My point was that, subsequent to Stewart's discovery and investigation, it was possible to conclusively establish Tumblety's contemporaneous candidacy as a real suspect, something no amount of investigation has so far been able to achieve in the case of Maybrick. Best regards, Mike
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 03:50 pm
Mike, I didn't think for a moment that you were making any such suggestion. That suggestion was someone else's, someone who obviously needs to go off and do a lot more reading and research before committing himself to print on these boards. As regards outstanding research you have already established your own credentials with the discovery of Arbie La Bruckman and much new information from US sources. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 03:57 pm
Hi, Stewart: Thanks for your clarification of these matters. Your important discovery of the Littlechild letter bears out your contention in the Ripper Notes interview I conducted with you, that important information remains to be found. As you noted, the finding of the contemporary newspaper reports on Tumblety followed from you finding the Littlechild letter... and as you said in the interview, much more probably remains to be found by modern researchers in the newspapers of the day. Best regards Chris George
Author: Michael Conlon Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 03:57 pm
Hi, Stewart, Many, many thanks for your kind words. Your work has been a paradigm for 'researchers' like myself. All the best, Mike
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 04:35 pm
Yes, there certainly is a lot more to be found. I have now discovered images of the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, Alexander Carmichael Bruce and Inspector McWilliam, head of the City Police detectives, at the time of the murders. It is interesting to note, also, that another of the Ripper-related letters to George R. Sims, that I purchased from Eric Barton, led to the discovery of Sims' lengthy article on the murders in Lloyd's Weekly News of Sept. 22, 1907. This article contained yet another rendering of the details (some variant) of the three Macnaghten suspects. Thank you both for the support, and I was pleased to hear that you had a great conference Chris. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 04:51 pm
Chris, This little booklet contains all the information on the Alton murder of Saturday 24 August 1867. However, this is a very well known case and all the details, including the diary kept by Baker, have been written about in popular books. The most easily obtainable, with a full account of the murder, is Brian Lane's The Murder Club Guide to South-East England, London, Harrap, 1988.
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 08:25 pm
If the Diary had been dealt with in the same professional manner as the Littechild letter then we would not have had to contend with 10 years of crap which the former is responsible for.To compare the letter to the diary is akin to comparing chalk with cheese. MR T was a suspect at the time of the murders and sources apart from the Littlechild letter show this to be fact.Maybrick was not a suspect at the time of the murders and while the diary remains a hoax the Littlechild letter remains genuine. Mr T was a suspect along with countless other suspects of the period.
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 08:40 pm
Peter, You need to learn a lot more about the history of poetry, especially its history in England and the history of the literary canon from the 17th to the 19th centuries, before spouting ignorant nonsense like you do above. The fact that Crashaw lived and died before Maybrick is not the point, of course. If you knew anything at all about the reception of the Metaphysicals before T.S. Eliot came along in the 1920's, or anything at all about the place of Crashaw in the received canon and the place of the translations of Crashaw's sacred Hymns from the Latin in his own published canon, you would know what a historical problem having a "James Maybrick" character quote this poem by Crashaw really is. And I have spoken now to nearly a dozen PhD level experts in both 17th Century literature and 19th Century literary history and culture that have all agreed quickly and unanimously about this. You, on the other hand, know nothing. You reveal that over and over again. You should probably stop revealing it at some point. And I have responded to Shirley's "history" of Crashaw volumes and their extremely limited runs and publications in the 19th century elsewhere on these boards in great depth, after having done my own research about how available these editions actually were and to whom, and how complete they actually were. Nothing that she has ever found out about privately published and partial collections and limited runs contradicts what I have been telling you and what the history actually is concerning this poem at this time. It's appearance in the diary is a significant problem for any claim to authenticity. Add to that the appearance of the same line from the same poem in the Sphere Guide and the problem is multiplied. The fact that you actually deny that is simply clear and convincing evidence that you are arguing from a position of total blindness and that you have given up rational and objective thought. Sometimes, Peter, it would really help if you knew what you were talking about. This mess with the Littlechild letter and its provenance is just one small example. There are plenty of others. --John
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 10:46 pm
Take the diary, the Littlechild letter and the Swanson marginalia and blast the whole bloody pile to kingdom come! They are all nothing but unreflective externalizations of your consciousness. Your ability to solve the case, and I assure you the case is solvable, lies in your ability to think a whole epistemological thought. Think: What is the one thing that MUST be true, given the evidence, and keep your eyes focused on that. Done deal. David
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 10:57 pm
Peter--Well mate, you're down, you're out, and you're being raked over the coals. And though I've tried my best to give your views a shake, I found your arguments horribly lacking, and now find myself having to give you a few more kicks while you're down. The information in the Littlechild Letter pertaining to Tumblety has been confirmed by other independent sources. We know he was arrested for gross indecency, jumped bail, fled to Havre, was investigated by the Yard, etc. None of the drivel about Maybrick has been independently confirmed. No one has even placed him in London at the time of the murders! Nobody thinks the diary's handwriting is his. And the best your lot has come up with in the past ten years is to dig up some trivia about a bloke named S.E. Mibrac who left some woolies in a hotel sometime in 1887. Oh, and the fact that Frigate was a second or two faster than a few other horses. Give up the ghost, old man. You have developed a fair working knowledge of the Whitechapel crimes, and your energy and enthusiasm is laudable. But really, Maybrick? WHY? For your own sake, why not re-group, reassess the information, and try finding a real suspect? P.S. It has been reported over here that Manchester United has picked up Uri Gellar as team physician. One can evidently heal a broken foot by waving a pendulum over it. Has the world gone bonkers? Cheers, RP
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 11:24 pm
Hi all, I am not a credential researcher - I am merely a neophyte who has spent 20 years reading and studying the Ripper case. I am thankful and grateful for the wonderful authors and researchers who grace these website, who share their information and opinions, and I hope they are not dissuaded by the crackpots peddling their amatuerish pet theories and denegrating those who disagree with them. I just want these folks to understand that the rest of us see through such nonsense. Mr. Evans work has been an exciting and worthy addition to Ripper research over the past decade. And no serious student of the case has questioned the evidence he has brought forth or intellectual honesty of his opinions (some of which I personally disagree with). Rich
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 05:34 am
Peter I'm sorry, but I think I actually understood the point you are making: you were simply asking how the �diary� would have been treated if it had had a good provenance (or, as you chose to express it, how the Littlechild letter would have been received if it had had a bad one). And the answer is �in exactly the same way� As, indeed, they were. And whilst I also understand that you are only using the Littlechild letter to illustrate your point, rather than questioning the genuineness of the letter itself, it is nevertheless worth pointing out that there are huge differences between the claims made in these respective documents. The Littlechild letter makes no claim to be identifying Jack the Ripper, but is in essence suggesting an alternative to a �Dr D� of whom Sims had heard and Littlechild had not. And the existence of Tumblety and the suspicions against him were confirmed through research. The letter did nothing but alert a modern researcher and writer to the existence of a legitimate suspect. There was nothing about the letter itself that was suggestive of hoax and even if the letter was a hoax, it made no difference whatsoever because Tumblety was as real as the suspicions against him. Add to which the impeccable reputations of those who owned the letter, and what grounds were there for questioning the letter? And what different would questioning it have made? In fact it is a testimony to Stewart Evans�s thoroughness, rather than from any practical requirement, that the letter was subjected to the tests he describes. So, whilst I know that you were not be critical of the Littlechild letter per se, it is a bad comparison. The �diary� not only had an appalling provenance (�I got it from a bloke down the pub who�s now dead and whose family know nothing about it�), it introduced a new suspect who was otherwise unconnected with the case. Basic tests such as handwriting would inevitably have been required (and they proved negative, so alarm bells rang).
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 09:20 am
Hi All, Well, you lot have said sweet FA concerning the evidence for Mike putting Crashaw in the diary, since my last post on the subject. What did you make of Mike's suggestion that he was so much cleverer than all the 'bloody scholars' who didn't have a clue where to find the quote? What was so clever about what Mike did? And maybe someone should ask Mike if he's ever heard of Fanny Adams and the diary her killer, Fred Baker, wrote? Who's the expert on these boards on what killers tend to write in their diaries? Is there one? How many such diaries exist to compare with the forger's work? Three short questions for today: 1) Anyone still believe that Mike was holding on to his Sphere Guide, knowing it was evidence of his involvement, in June 1994, when he spoke to Harold Brough? If so, is this belief supported by anything other than those two bookends, desire and great expectations? 2) Anyone still believe that Mike bought the diary ink, and that it was Diamine? If so, is this belief supported by anything other than the test Melvin chose to commission, purely for the presence of chloroacetamide, when a direct comparison of the diary ink with Diamine should have been able to prove Mike's story beyond doubt and blow the diary clean away, if Melvin really believed he was on the right track? Why mess about with the former test, if Diamine was the only suitable ink Mike could have bought from the shop, and its chloroacetamide content was known? 3) Anyone still believe Mike would have ordered and received the little 1891 diary, using his real name and address, in the hope of transferring the text of the Maybrick journal he helped create before its journey to London? If so, is this belief supported by anything other than a suspicion that Mike must have been up to no good? Thanks. Love, Caz
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 09:27 am
Hello Paul & Stewart, Nice posts from both of you. And good to see sensible points made. If someone had approached either you or Stewart or for that matter me and Sue or several other researchers, and said he or she thought Maybrick was a likely suspect for JTR, Maybrick would have been worthy of some research, no matter how little, irrespective of the diary. What with his adulterous lifestyle, drug taking, dodgy background, connections with East London and his early controversial demise. What clouds the sky and muddies the water is the so-called journal and the even more suspect watch. And more to the point those who pushed and are still pushing them. As it is I think Shirley Harrison did a good job making coherent sense of it all. I think she would be the first to admit the whole saga has been a distraction right from the start. And she probably would have been able to put an equally good case for Maybrick without the diary and watch.
Author: Vila Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 10:43 am
I had a scary thought while I was reading the above posts. I'd like to share it with you. If (my manners forbid me say "since" out of respect for the opinions of others) the Diary is a hoax and the ink test plus the contextual evidence can establish a date for its true writing... And if also the psychology of the text points to the diary as being the work of a real killer... Does that mean that the diarist was (could have been) a JTR fan who read everything he could about the Ripper, even to the point of being a copycat killer? Were there any murders that could fit for the years the diary was most likely written? I told you it was a scary thought. Its probably meaningless as well. Its just something that came to mind while reading yesterday's posts.
Author: Tee Vee Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 11:02 am
Wow!!! its been active since i went to work yesterday. Thanks John. I understand what you are saying and I DO agree with you. I understand now that this Diary is almost officially a forged document. but what I was actually trying to say was that now this diary has been cained so badly for its mistakes, a would be forger would take all this into consideration and think well i can do better than that, I wont make these mistakes. If the diary hadnt of come out yet, but it was say "for example" the Littlechild letter that came about in 88-89 with the same crappy provenance stories that come with the diary, and it was torn apart by everyone here (and quite rightly so) The would be forger for the diary wouldn`t make the same mistakes and the diary would almost be flawless. Because i sort of now know what everyone looks for in a Ripper fake. does this make sense ???? I know i`m not an graduate in oxford. But if i was to make a fake document, the last thing i`d do is on a subject to do with the whitechapel murders. UNLESS i knew it would be flawless.Because and Only because of the diary. Anyway loads to read above so. Thanks again guys. Take care. Yours truly Tyler (Tee-Vee)
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 11:15 am
Hi, Tyler: I have to think it is unfortunate that, as Paul Begg and Stewart Evans have indicated, the Diary and the Littlechild letter are being spoken of in the same breath since there is no comparability between the two documents. One (the Littlechild letter) is believed to be genuine with a good provenance, the other (the Diary) is a fake with no good provenance. Moreover, as Paul says, all the Littlechild letter did was point to Tumblety as a "very likely suspect" which lead to research into Dr. Tumblety following Stewart's purchase of the document from antiquarian bookseller Eric Barton, whereas the Diary allegedly was written by the killer and thus gives a solution to the case, a very different situation. Best regards Chris George
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 11:49 am
Hi Caz, I'll give them a shot. 1.) I don't believe there is any material evidence that allows us to claim that Mike knew about the Sphere Guide and the quote personally when he was talking to Brough. Of course, I also don't believe that the fact that Mike did not mention the Guide to Brough is proof that he did not know about it or the quote. This is still Mike we are talking about. So, while I do not think the case has been made that Mike clearly knew about the Guide's relevance during his Brough interview, it seems at least still possible that he did and had his own typically irrational reason for not mentioning it. There is no reliable material evidence either way, as far as I can tell. I do believe though that the Sphere Guide is still far and away the most likely source for this line from this poem in this "diary." And I am not convinced that Mike found the literary source of this line, without any foreknowledge or information whatsoever, in the library. That belief is based entirely on my experience with such research and with libraries, however, and not on specific material evidence of Mike's lying about this. 2.) There seems to have been some of the chloro-stuff in the ink. I don't think we know for sure yet how much. So I don't think we can say yet whether the ink really was specifically the Diamine brand or not. As far as whether or not Mike bought it, that question rests solely on whether you believe Mike's stories, and there is certainly no reason in particular to do that, about this or anything else that is not supported by independent and reliable evidence. 3.) No, I don't believe that. I never have. That claim seems purely and completely speculative. Once again being no help at all, --John
Author: Tee Vee Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 11:52 am
To Mr Evans. I did on all of my occasions of writing nonsense (as you basically described) I said clearly that I did not consider you to be part of anything in what i was saying, I was just using your discovery as an example. And I will read more, but whether i actually decide to put any money into your bank account ever again is now debatable. You write a book to give people that are interested in the subject more to read, and also for the new generation of Ripper fans to follow an interested in the subject, then slate them subliminaly because they just asked a question about a document that proves to be the most significant thing to date to bring Mr Tumblety into the fore front of the ripper murders(again). And now that i have weened myself from the diary, I`m just reading the files and letters at present. So i thought I would like to read up on someone else as the lead suspect of the Ripper. Dr Tumblety was my choice, but i didnt want to read another book that once i`d finished it would then be passed over to the fiction section. And like i said I might not be a graduate in victorian criminal psychology, the english language, ink analasis at Oxford, but the point is I have bought your books. And it is your research that i have read (along with your co writers)and i stated endless times that i have enjoyed reading your book. I understand you getting vexed with me for bringing up the littlechild letter. But it was as an example of how the diary has changed the outlook on new discoveries and forgeries too. I did not mean to offend anyone at all.
Author: Tee Vee Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 12:14 pm
I`m sorry i used the two in the same breath I know they are nothing alike. I was just curious. It was the littlechild letter that over took my interest in Jack the Ripper from James Maybrick to Tumblety. And It`s Tumblety that I intend on reading up on. And i know from the past on here that its worth asking people on here if your curious about something. Thats all i did.I just wanted to know whether the next book i was going to buy was going to be a good read with worthy and valid points. And i do know that your research is impecable. I`ve read most of your work. I did not mean for anyone to be insulted or offended by what i had written. Please forgive me (again) Tyler
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 12:38 pm
Hi Caz Apropos the quote, '"None of you bloody scholars had a clue where to look."' Much depends on whether Mike said this to Melvin before or after 30th September. The word 'had' suggests after, in which case the statement was both true and at the same time is totally meaningless as evidence that Mike knew the source of the quote before 30th September and gloated over the futile efforts of those who were looking for it. 1. I'm not so equally balanced in my opinion as John O. because my impression of Mike from those days was that he was absolutely desperate to get Anne and Caroline back and that he would have used the Sphere book if he'd known about it. The idea that he hald out for money just doesn't fit with my experience of what was going on at that time. 2. Mike never mentioned Diamine by name, but since Diamine is a Liverpool-based ink manufacturer and we can suppose the ink to therefore have a fairly wide distribution in Liverpool, it wouldn't be surprising if the ink was Diamine, whether Mike bought it or not. As to whether or not Mike did buy it, we have reason to believe that he did not buy the book from the auctioneer. If one part of his story is wrong, in my view it lessens the value of the second part. Furthermore, Mike not having bought the ink is consistent with Mike's failure to otherwise provide any sort of coherent narrative of the conception and execution of the forgery. On the face of it, I'd guess that Mike didn't buy the ink. 3. Ditto John. Hi Tyler You didn't say anything to offend me and I'd be surprised if you offended Stewart either, and the essence of what you were saying (that a document seemingly with excellent provenance is going to be accepted as genuine) is perfectly correct. And that is one of the fascinations about the 'diary', because how many forged documents are accepted as genuine and how many genuine documents are dismissed as forgeries? It is important that we discover who forged the 'diary', when it was forged and why it was forged, because the information thus gained can probably be applied to such 'finds' in the future. The reality, though, is that something usually starts alarm bells ringing and usually it is the document's reason for being. A forger usually has a purpose in mind for his forgery, and if that purpose conveys itself to the investigator then it is going to argue for tests.
Author: David O'Flaherty Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 12:54 pm
Hi Caz, John, and Paul Regarding the 1891 diary--why did Mike order it in the first place? Just wondering, Dave
Author: Triston Marc Bunker Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 01:03 pm
Hi all, As I've suggested on my Space Monkey page (in the pub talk section) how about a full history of the diary section in this private site ? I keep reading arguements here and feel left out in what seems common knowledge. Heck, I want to join in but I don't know where to start. As I pleade before, in Space Monkey, Stephen and Ally, please keep an updated page on the Diary for us novices. All the best, Tris (Rosemary's ugly looking Twin Brother.)
Author: Stewart P Evans Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 01:21 pm
Tyler, Obviously you need one or two points elucidating for you. I am aware of the kind remarks that you have made about my work in the past and the only post in this thread in response to you was the one I made on Sunday 21 April at 02.52 pm pointing out that the Littlechild letter was genuine and had excellent provenance. This was in response to your various remarks in the preceding post that "It looks more dodgy than the diary." and "Oh someone just let me know if I'm going to go forth and read a book full of nonsense.???" Personally, I found your comments a trifle uncalled for and certainly uninformed. Your post in response to mine was more than adequately answered by Paul Begg. The subsequent posts I made were directed at someone else who really should know better, given his credentials. It would seem, from the comments of others here, that you are the only one presuming they were made to you. As regards your comments made to me today I have the following to say. Whether or not you 'actually decide to put any money into my bank account ever again' is entirely up to you. Let me say here that I receive around 50 pence per book sold (and that is then taxed) so us authors are far from getting rich on the proceeds of these books. That is unless they sell in huge quantites which is extremely rare. Paul Begg has explained this fact in the past. But we still do appreciate it when those interested are good enough to buy our books. It is not a question of 'slating anyone subliminaly because they just asked a question about a document'. Comments such as:- "There are no good reasons for supposing why the Littlechild letter would be kept hidden..." "I don't think we can say anything for the provenance just going by who discovered one or other document...but really the Littlechild letter has not been subjected to anywhere near the analysis that the diary has, not scientific analysis, not handwriting analysis etc etc." "Before the Littlechild letter was 'discovered' nobody mentioned Tumblety in the same breath as Jack the Ripper." "On that basis alone, Tumblety is no stronger a candidate for the Ripper than Maybrick." "Circumstance has fallen in favour of the Littlechild letter..." "I ask, has anyone ever done a handwriting comparison with the Littlechild letter? Let alone scraped infinitessimally small amounts of ink from it to be tested for chemicals." These comments were made by someone who has allegedly read up on the case against Tumblety. They cast doubt upon the authenticity of the Littlechild letter and I find them rather insulting to my own standards. It is not the first time that I have had cause to respond to comments by this person. There is absolutely no way that the Littlechild letter should be compared with the fake 'diary'. I do not think that you intended to insult or offend me and I took your initial post as ill-informed and in need of correction. I responded in that fashion. There is nothing to forgive you for and no offence has been taken. I thought that would be an end to the matter, but someone else decided to prolong the issue. Again thank you for your kind words and I am pleased that you have enjoyed my book. If you don't want to put money into my bank account you can always borrow a library copy. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Tee Vee Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 01:56 pm
Mr Stewart I really appreciate your post as I did wrongly take it as a dig at me, as i am probably the least knowledgable on this subject on the board. This Tumblety theory is my next priority to read up on, so once i`ve finish my pace maker (Carry it everywhere) "The Ultimate source book" I will indeed buy your book. I`d like to say that I too have seen the old newspapers from the time saying that Tumblety was indeed a suspect and that they suspected that he`d fled to new york. I do feel guilty as i brought up the subject on this board in the first place. Thanks. Tyler (with quite a bit of egg on his face)