Archive through 30 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 30 April 2002

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: TIME FOR A RE-VALUATION II: Archive through 30 April 2002

Author: Peter Wood Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 02:29 pm
Dear dear Stewart It wasn't I that started a comparison between the Littlechild letter and the diary, but it is I who seem to be getting all the abuse for it! Why are you taking comments I have made so personally? I haven't questioned your integrity and in private correspondence between us I had gained a lot of respect for you. But Stewart, you really should take my posts in the same context that Paul Begg has, I wasn't saying anything against the Littlechild letter "per se", I was merely asking what would have happened if Mike had bought the book that it fell out of, instead of you? As to these comments which appear to have riled you: "Before the Littlechild letter was 'discovered' nobody mentioned Tumblety in the same breath as Jack the Ripper." It stands true. None of the modern researchers mentioned Tumblety in the same breath as Jack the Ripper. What's wrong with that? "On that basis alone, Tumblety is no stronger a candidate for the Ripper than Maybrick." The important line there, Stewart, is "On that basis alone". I am saying 'Take this point out of the context of the overall investigation into both/either document(s). Before you 'discovered' the Littlechild letter nobody was talking about Tumblety as a suspect, before the diary was 'discovered' nobody was talking about Maybrick as a suspect. Therefore what I said above is true and I stand by it. "Circumstance has fallen in favour of the Littlechild letter..." Stewart, it is without doubt that one of the strong points in favour of the Littlechild letter that it was you who discovered it. Much of my previous posts has been trying to get people to imagine how the Littlechild letter would have been received if it had been discovered by someone other than yourself. Mike Barrett for instance? Only Paul Begg seems to have grasped what I was saying. So I don't think it is fair for various posters to talk of my "credentials" and my "grasp" of the subject. I will readily admit I have very little grasp of the subject, to me it seems nothing more than organised chaos. On one thing I will agree: Shirley could make a very convincing job of prosecuting Maybrick without the aid of the diary. He's up there with all the leading suspects: Whitechapel connections, a propensity for violence towards women, mind altering drug addiction. But the diary did come into being, and to me Paul Feldman has written a damn fine and interesting book. In my darker moments I still believe the diary has to be a fake, but in my more lucid moments there are points to which I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. Sir Jim, for instance. And Stewart I doubt very much if you could ever be left out of the discussion. It is one thing to make a request to be left out of the discussions, and quite another to make several posts after that request. John Omlor: This is the way it is John, I fully accept that the Sphere guide would probably blow the diary argument apart, if only Mike had revealed it at the correct time. Mike has never been able to give a sound and convincing explanation of how and when he forged the diary, which leaves you lot to argue that Mike must have just contributed the Crashaw quote. That in itself makes no sense. From my point of view, Crashaw was around two hundred years before Maybrick, and however unlikely you say it is that Maybrick would know Crashaw's work, I think you have to accept that it is at least a possibility. It is more probable than Mike having forged the diary. I think you all need to borrow Paul Begg's eyes for a few moments (especially you, Stewart) and read my posts again. My vitriol is not directed at the Littlechild letter OR Stewart, it is merely directed at a comparison between the circumstances by which the two documents came to our attention. One thing I must thank you for Stewart, and that is for pointing out the amount of analysis (handwriting, ink etc) that the Littlechild letter has been subjected to. Still nowhere near the amount that the diary has been subjected to. And I still don't think any of you have managed to prove the diary to be a fake. Until you do, I will continue to post here, otherwise you will have free reign to write what you will and that would simply not do. So go on, off you toddle, read back a little bit and you'll see that I'm not the big bad wolf that every one thinks I am. R.J. Apparently Uri Geller laid his hands onto a newspaper photograph of David Beckham's ankle, that is all. There is no question of Manchester United employing him, that is the job of the tabloid press. Regards etc etc Peter.
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 02:56 pm
Hi, Peter Wood: You wrote: ". . . Tumblety is no stronger a candidate for the Ripper than Maybrick." What????? Again basic facts seem to elude you. As you have with Stewart, you and I have been in e-mail contact, and I will say that the e-mail exchanges have been quite amicable and you seem a friendly and pleasant fellow. However, your understanding of the case and of standards of evidence is sorely lacking. How can you compare a document written by a top Scotland Yard official saying Tumblety was "a very likely suspect" with a contested document not provably written by anyone identifiable? Tumblety's candidacy as a suspect is established in a contemporary document of 1913 written by a top police official, a manuscript with a good provenance as well as in contemporary 1888 press reports, yet in favor of Maybrick the best you can do is show us a document of dubious origins that only surfaced in 1992. So your argument that the worth of the Littlechild letter rests, as you imply, mostly on Stewart's good reputation is baseless if not insulting to the intelligence of the better informed people here. Peter, don't let your enthusiasm for Maybrick cloud what the real facts are. Best regards Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 03:12 pm
Hi Vila, You are a gentleman, sir, for writing: �If (my manners forbid me say "since" out of respect for the opinions of others) the Diary is a hoax�� Unfortunately, and much to many people�s surprise in this day and age, it appears not to be possible to establish with any degree of certainty a date for the diary�s creation, at least not scientifically. And even historically, it seems to be an imperfect exercise, depending largely on comparing when and how ripper and Maybrick information became available to members of the general public with what the anonymous author chose to write. John Omlor has stated that it is impossible for anyone, even the most qualified or experienced psychopathologist, to judge from the way this anonymous text has been written, whether it points to a real killer at work, or someone who has a better understanding than most of how a real killer might compose his thoughts, or a writer of basic fiction with no more idea than the rest of us about what to include and what not to include. The other problem with an anonymous text that can�t be dated scientifically, and has no known provenance before Mike Barrett acquired it, is that we don�t know that the author is an ordinary member of the general public. Without having a clue who he was/is, and when he was working on the document, how can anyone state with complete authority that he could/could not have had access to a particular piece of information? Hi John and Paul, Thanks for considering those questions three. Paul, you say the idea that Mike held out for money just doesn't fit with your experience of what was going on at that time. I�d also add that it appears to make no sense anyway, even if Mike later used this as his excuse for not telling Brough the whole story with knobs on. If he really did put Crashaw in the diary as a result of seeing the lines in his Sphere Guide circa 1989, he could have mentioned something about it to Brough without having to give him �something for nothing�, surely? Brough would have been none the wiser had Mike dropped a hint such as, �There are five little words that I put in the diary and only I know where they came from � and I can prove it.� Mike could have kept the actual source secret unless or until he was sure that Brough, or another newspaper, was prepared to offer something for it. But Mike goes and spoils it all by saying absolutely nothing - at least not to anyone who would have been aware that there was an �O costly�� mystery, and who would have been impressed, or at least intrigued, by any hint from Mike about it. Instead, he only allegedly tells his solicitor and drops hints to Alan Gray, and more than three months after his initial confession, he is saying something stupid to Shirley about finding the mystery lines in the library. And thus, as Paul has said before, Mike throws away the one and only means of making his first confession stick, along with any chance of cashing in on what would have been a highly newsworthy story. I say one and only means, because Mike�s story of buying the diary ink relies on it being Diamine, and to date no test has identified it as such. I don�t think anyone has ever suggested there was an alternative ink in that same shop that Mike could have bought and used for the forgery. But of course, a forger could still have used Diamine even if Mike�s story was a lie. And it would have been curtains for the diary whether Mike lied or not, if only Melvin�s test could have positively identified Diamine, instead of an unknown quantity of an ingredient that no one can say for certain would not have been used by anyone making ink in the earlier days of experimenting with newly manufactured chemicals such as chloroacetamide. Love, Caz
Author: Richard P. Dewar Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 03:19 pm
Peter, You wrote that no one considered Tumblety a Ripper suspect prior to the discovery of the Littlechild letter. This is patently false. Now you have suggested that what counts is if "modern" researchers considered Tumblety a suspect. You are shifting ground. Mr Evans credentials do support the authenticity of the Littlechild letter. But one needn't rely on his reputation to accept the letter. What has been provided are contemporary accounts of Tumblety as a suspect. This evidence, subsequently discovered, supports the authenticity of the letter Mr. Evans procured. To make a comparison. . .if today someone came forward with press clippings or police reports suggesting that Maybrick was a contemporaneous suspect that would add to the credibility of the Maybrick diary (though it would not prove it as true). In short, Mr. Evans discovered the Littlechild letter and subsequently found that Tumblety was a contemporary suspect for the Whitechapel murders. This had been unknown to present day researchers. In the case of the Maybrick diary there has been no subsequent information from any other source that lends credibility to Maybrick being Jack the Ripper or even being suspected. Rich
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 04:37 pm
Hi David: Unfortunately, I believe that any question which begins with the phrase "Why did Mike.." is likely doomed to failure. It seems to me that there are at least two possibilities. 1.) Mike was planning on using the ordered diary as part of a forgery. Problem: he knowingly gave his own full name and home address when ordering the thing even though he was allegedly about to use it to commit a potentially serious crime. This would seem to be completely irrational behavior. 2.) Mike was ordering it having acquired the other diary, in the hope that he could compare a real, authentic Victorian diary to the one he was holding and learn something about what he had. Problem: there would have been a mess of easier ways to do this than to order a book that would have been all wrong for these purposes any way. He could have just visited an old book shop or museum, for instance. Ordering this little book only for comparison purposes seems to be completely irrational behavior. You see the difficulty here? Whatever reason we offer for Mike behaving the way he did, it seems inexplicable and irrational. And we might not even have the real reason among these two possibilities. He might have done so for a completely other irrational reason that we can't even imagine. He's Mike. We are dealing with a dishonest, addictive, emotional and often irrational person and asking "Why did he..." often leads us only deeper into the morass that is his mind. Unless our speculations can be externally supported by some sort of material, corroborating evidence, I believe we are on very shaky ground indeed with all these speculations and explanations as to Mike's motives. We know the diary is a fake. We know Mike brought it forward to Doreen, so at some point he owned this fake. Beyond that, we don't know very much at all. Still. --John
Author: Ally Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 04:42 pm
Chris, et. al Why do you continue to treat Peter as a serious poster? Actually answering/challenging his ridiculous statements? When he was being ignored (for all of two days before someone caved) he had very little to say. You know the old rule about a stalker? For every one response you give him, you are buying yourself six weeks of harassment. Yay. Let's everybody give Peter what he wants...someone to argue with so this inanity can go on and on and on and on....
Author: David O'Flaherty Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 04:58 pm
John, Sorry, I didn't word my question well. What I meant was what reason did Mike give for buying the 1891 diary? I apologize for going over old territory, but I'm assuming someone asked him for an explanation. I just wondered what his response was. And thanks for your response, John. I agree that trying to get inside Mike's head is a fruitless endeavor. Dave
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 05:10 pm
OK Ally, As you might have noticed, I have just removed the initial paragraphs of my last post, which responded directly to Peter's ridiculous and ignorant comments concerning the historical probability of the line from the Crashaw poem being quoted by the real James Maybrick and cited a number of experts with whom I have spoken regarding this subject. While I do believe that with each post he writes, Peter demonstrates to more and more readers not only the shallowness of the case for the diary but his own lack of serious, thoughtful reading and lack of care in writing, and that this sort of vivid demonstration might be useful; from now on I will try and send any responses I might feel compelled to make to his silly provocations directly to him via private e-mail. Otherwise, I will attempt (once again) to ignore his irrational trolling here on these boards. Starting now. Wish me luck, --John PS: Dave, I believe Mike offered something like the "comparison theory" response when asked about the ordered diary, but I'm not sure of this. Perhaps Caz knows precisely what he said.
Author: David Radka Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 09:00 pm
What do the famous externalizations of Ripperlogical consciousness--the Littlechild letter, the Swanson marginalia, the diary, and so on, represent to the mind of the beholder? Often I've tried to shape my mind around this question, in an effort to comprehend the mystique of these artifacts, their compelling attraction, and the reasons why those who could still haven't solved the case. I lie in bed at night and think of the great Ripperologists, of what kind of men they must be, of what they find in these things that fascinate them so. Is this why we love them, all of us? Do these men represent to us our own tragedies from a distance, from the comfort of being another person? Do we imagine them as feeling the frustration, the awful pain, the disagreement of subject and object, so we won't have to? David
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 09:06 pm
Hi David, "I lie in bed at night and think of the great Ripperologists..." You don't, really. Do you? I mean I know this is a web site. But it's not that kind of a web site. --John
Author: David Radka Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 09:13 pm
John, The mistakes of great men are worth more than the successes of lesser ones, because they are more educational. --Nietzsche David
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 09:34 pm
David, "My genius is in my nostrils." --Nietzsche "All of us know, even know from experience, what a long-eared beast the ass is. Well then, I dare assert that I have the smallest ears. This is of no small interest to the little ladies -- it seems to me that they may feel I understand them better. I am the anti-ass par excellence..." --Nietzsche --John (Clip away, Ally.)
Author: Michael Conlon Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 10:27 pm
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." --Yogi Berra
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 12:34 am
And anyone who now quotes Yogi Bear gets shot!
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 05:13 am
I'm smarter than the average - bare (but with my clothes on I disappear from the IQ scale). --Caz Bad argument and bad thinkers can ruin any theory, right or wrong. But the best argument and the greatest thinkers can never ever ever make a wrong theory right. The truth is already there. Like America was there complete with human beings when it was first 'discovered'. These things you all know but reminders never go amiss. Hi David, From memory Mike used the 1891 diary in his January 1995 'confession' statement, suggesting it was bought in connection with the forgery that he composed and dictated to Anne to write into the scrapbook. All that work and then Mike decides at the eleventh hour to search for a better book for it? And ends up with a tiny specimen dated 1891? Doesn't sound very likely, if he has recently been dictating 'May 1889' to Anne, does it? Also from memory, I think it was Anne who thought Mike wanted to see what a Victorian diary looked like. I'm not sure whether this was speculation on her part, or gathered from something Mike said. It kind of makes sense to me that, if Mike really didn't know what he was dealing with here, and was about to take the diary to London bigwigs saying he thought it could be valuable, he might well be itching to know what a real Victorian diary was like. Maybe he thought he wouldn't have time to go looking in old bookshops and such on the off-chance he might find one. Maybe he had been round plenty before and had never come across any old diaries. Maybe he thought a direct request to a suitable book firm was the best and quickest option here. And if he thought he would soon be making lots of lovely money, the expense might not have been a consideration for him. In fact, when the tiny 1891 diary arrived, he could have returned it without paying had it not met his specifications. Instead, he kept it and was marked down as a late payer by the book firm, and finally Anne had to pay for it by cheque. All of which supports an argument that Mike either didn't specify size or date and therefore couldn't ask for his money back, or he didn't care about the money by that stage because his mind was already focussed on making enough money to pay for as many diaries as his little heart desired. Love, Caz
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 06:24 am
Hi Caz Again from memory and I am probably wrong about this, but I rather thought Anne was furious with Mike for buying the diary. Hi David If Mike Barrett did not pen the �diary�, and it seems that the handwriting isn�t his, then why would have completed the task, got a nice bite of interest from Doreen Montgomery and with mere days before he took the thing to London buy a diary into which to transcribe the text all over again? And, if that was his intention, don't you think he would have ensured that the 'diary' was big enough and for the correct year? And, of course, if he didn't pen the 'diary', what authority would he have had to even think of transcribing the text into a new 'diary'?
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 07:25 am
Hi Paul, No, I'm sure you're right. Well, in as much as Anne claimed to be furious with Mike for having ordered the expensive little maroon diary at a time when they could ill afford it, if it was just so he could compare it with the one he already had. Again, unless Mike had specified size or date, she may have had little alternative but to sign the cheque after it had arrived and the book firm was pressing for payment. Love, Caz
Author: Philip C. Dowe Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 11:16 am
Hi all, these two questions came to me yesterday and I wondered if someone out there can supply an answer: 1) Has anybody done any research on Tony Devereux? 2) What is Abberline's role in the Stride inquest? The reason for asking is quite simple. In Tony's case - what if Mikes first story is true? Michael Caine was brilliant as Abberline in the 1988 production, but in reality he was not the leading man all through the case. The author of the diary claism that Abberline kept something back afetr the Double Event - but was he sofar involved? Philip
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 11:24 am
Hi Caz I think the purchase of the diary has to be seen in the context of Mike�s general inability to provide an account of the forgery process � what I am getting fed up calling �the conception and execution of the forgery�. If the whole escapade was his idea and if he had the authority to demand that the penperson transcribe the �diary� from the �diary� to the diary, then maybe he did buy the diary for that purpose. But then we have to explain why he�s been unable to describe the c&e of the forgery. On the other hand, if it wasn�t his idea and if he didn�t have the authority to change the whole plan at the last minute, and if his role was that of witting or unwitting placer, then he wouldn�t have bought the diary to transcribe the �diary� text into. And, of course, if the diary was bought to transcribe the �diary� into, one would suppose that Mike, by no means a man lacking common sense, would have bought a diary of the right size and date. That he didn�t do this suggests that neither really mattered. Overall, the least problematic explanation is that Mike did by the diary to see what one looked like. Moreover, it doesn�t matter whether he was a guilty forger or an innocent patsy or bystander, he could still have bought the �diary� to see what it looked like. I do take John O�s point about there being easier ways to obtain that information, but I am not sure whether Mike would have appreciated this. And curiosity fed by a few pints could ever so easily have led to a spontaneous purchase.
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 12:05 pm
Caz--How do we really know that Anne Graham 'had to pay for the diary by cheque'? Isn't this is merely Anne's story? What I mean is this. The cancelled check DID have Anne Graham's signature on it. But the rest of the information on the check was filled out by Mike. There is no evidence, then, that Anne Graham even knew what she was paying for. Quite an odd set-up. The possibility exists that Mike fanagled her into signing a blank check. An odd purchase...and an odd way of paying for the purchase. Something wrong here, I'd say. Yeah, I still believe that this purchase is connected to the creation of the Maybrick diary...somehow. Of course I am sensitive to the pitfalls of circumstantial evidence. Still, there's something about this red diary that I don't like. A man is accused of being a masked bank robber. The police find out that a month before the robbery spree, the man bought a shot-gun and a pair of ladie's nylon stockings. Is this proof of anything? Of course not; the man could be a cross-dresser who likes to hunt pheasants. But in the case of the red diary, I don't see any pheasant hunting going on. In other words, I don't see any believable or credible alternative explaining WHY Mike would want to buy a relatively expensive genuine Victorian diary. A short time later, Mike shows up in London with a hoax diary and he can't explain where he got it. The diary he has is suspiciously damaged...it's missing some pages and had evidently been used as a clippings album at one point. Also it is damaged on the cover [or so I hear] which leads to the possibility that some marking was removed from it... so maybe IT wasn't an pre-1888 diary either. A couple years later we learn that Mike bought a genuine Victorian diary previous to this trip to London...the shot-gun and the nylon stockings, if you will. The only alternative suggestion I am hearing is some vague idea that Mike bought this for "research purposes"...but this comes from those who are also arguing that Mike evidenly didn't DO any research. And he never mentioned this purchase, either. I don't like it. My bet is that it's connected somehow to the creation of the Maybrick diary.
Author: David O'Flaherty Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 12:27 pm
Thanks, Caz, John, and Paul for answering my question--and for giving me a whalloping great headache, but I guess I asked for it. Paul, I'm afraid I don't have any good answers for the excellent questions you pose for why Mike bought the little red diary. Maybe he was on a bender and not thinking clearly--I've heard that drink inhibits clear thinking You bring up that his meeting with Doreen was only a few days away--maybe he was having second thoughts about turning in the photo album and panicked and ordered a new book, only he forgot to specify a size and date. My real answer to your question is that honestly, I don't know. I'm baffled and can only offer 'maybes' and speculation, which doesn't really get us anywhere, I admit. Cheers, Dave
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 26 April 2002 - 10:29 am
Hi RJ, How do we really know that Anne Graham 'had to pay for the diary by cheque'? Because we know she signed the cheque that paid for the diary. Could Mike have persuaded Anne to sign a blank cheque? It�s possible, although I would think unlikely. But in any case, you appear to be reading �odd� into the whole episode simply because you want it to be odd. Mike could have told Anne everything or nothing at the time about ordering the little diary or why he claimed to want one. But I don't see that any of this helps you decide how either was involved with the Maybrick diary. You can�t compare Mike and his two diaries, one of unknown origin the other known to be genuine, with a man accused of being a masked bank robber. In the latter case, we can safely assume a bank has actually been robbed at some point. In the former, you have yet to establish that any offence has been committed. You can add the little 1891 diary to any other �evidence� you have already gathered for an offence having been committed, but that�s about all. You go too far if you have to presume the offence has taken place in order to accuse Mike of being the offender. IMHO Love, Caz
Author: Tee Vee Saturday, 27 April 2002 - 05:20 pm
Hi Guys and Girls, I must say i havent seen Steve Powell about in a little while ? And his australian provenence. And also... Was it all a seriously long drawn out april fool joke that never had a punchline ? Or now sworn to secrecy due to be published soon on hardback and paperback ? Information on the other 40 pages. Anyone know what happened to this meeting between Mr Skinner and Mike ? I was just reading archives, and its amazing how far, everybody, even the already proven experts have matured. And how all the context of the writting just get better and more in depth. and the fact that i think that the members of these pages alone could solve as many crimes as the police, just given evidence in this medium. forgery , Murder. i think the gathering of such curious folk is producing sharper minds for all invloved in this debate. i must admit i have given my mind a break for a day or so from jack book, and have picked one up (only a shortie) about Charles Whitman, after hearing about another school shootout (germany 26/04/2002) and just to give my mind a rest for a day from living on the shoulder of Mr Wynne E Baxter. And from what i`ve read he was a bloody good shot. But will be back on the case in a day or so. I built a page on the diary about a year or so ago, and i`m now crying fake too. this page is as good as reading any book. it gives you the facts as they`re known, by the people who know them. and it`s a great pleasure to be part of it. But where are all those names from the past ???? Caz your there all the way through it. do you know?? And this is a special dedication to a good man. Mr Begg. A 12" Pizza with tuna and anchovy topping. sorry mate. Be lucky Tyler Tee
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 09:42 am
Hello all, Apropos of nothing in particular, I wanted to offer a little reading thought that has been brewing inside my head this morning. A while back, there was talk on the boards about the lines in the diary that have Abberline holding back something and being a "clever little man," keeping back information, for instance. Several experts on the police investigation into the Ripper case have pointed out that Abberline could not have actually done this -- he would not have had the authority himself and in the Eddowes case (the one which is seemingly discussed in the same poem) he would not even have had the jurisdiction. But the question of the diary's historical accuracy is not my point today. I also noticed that the diarist then fixates on Abberline, addressing him in one way or another each time his attention turns to his murders and away from his family and home life. It also makes a point, after the Chapman killing, of saying "They have me down as left handed." When writing about Abberline, the writer uses the phrase "nothing is mentioned." And at two later points the diarist has Abberline actually saying things, interesting things. "Abberline says he is now amazed, Sir Jim has not struck another / He waits patiently." and a few pages before that "Abberline says, he was never amazed, I did my work with such honour. For his decree he had to agree, I deserve at least an honour." This comparatively full characterization of Abberline in this diary has always interested me, and the notion of Abberline himself holding something back on purpose to identify the killer I also thought was interesting -- "a battle of wits between two men" sort of dramatic thing. And finally there is the "close call" scene in the diary where the killer is almost caught and then curses Abberline himself, as if it was actually Abberline who almost caught him in the act. It is quite possible to read "Abberline" at the end of that paragraph as being the "bastard" in its opening lines. So, anyway, last night I was flipping channels on the television, and there on channel 66 was our old friend Michael Caine as Detective Abberline matching wits against Gull and Netley and, with his side-kick, pub-brawling George, running about with Lees and harrassing the famous stage actor Mansfield and kissing Jane Seymour for no apparent reason. But as I watched the melodrama, things began to sound strangely familiar. It started with the arrival of the "Dear Boss" letter. Caine as Abberline is delighted with the letter and rushes to George to show it to him. He has George read the line about clipping "the ears off just for a jolly" twice. Then he looks meaningfully at George and triumphantly announces that he has had the coroner deliberately "hold back" the fact that Annie Chapman's ears were nicked, thinking that therefore only the real killer could have known this and that this line proves that the killer wrote the letter. Now I don't know whether any of this is historically accurate, or by what logic the sentence about cutting off ears is supposed to show knowledge of the previous victim's ears being cut (like much of this movie, it doesn't make any real sense). But this figure of Abberline "holding back" information so that only the real killer would know it is written directly into the movie. In the diary, the lines occur after the Eddowes murder, but a quick look shows that the composition of the poem begins only a few entries after the Chapman one and the references to the "clue" being held back is deliberately vague and exists in proximity to the mention of the letters and sending Central another one. Then, sure enough, as I continue watching, Caine as Abberline makes a big point of the killer being left-handed and tests all the suspects in custody to see if any are. Since they're not, he lets them go. And later Abberline wonders why Jack hasn't killed again before the Mary Kelly murder and at several points talks about having to be patient. And of course, the movie has Abberline even meeting with the Prime Minister and all the bunk about a Royal Coach and the rumors about the Prince and significant scenes where people are talking about how much the Queen knows and the Queen being concerned -- and the film uses the phrase "the name all London is talking about" and as I'm watching I'm thinking to myself, hmmmm, this all sounds still oddly familiar. I must confess, that I fell asleep at that point, (with only the last half hour or so to go) and did not see whether there was a scene where Abberline almost stumbles on the killer in a foiled murder attempt or anything like that -- although it wouldn't surprise me if there was. So, anyway, I re-read the diary pages this morning, looking specifically at the characterization of Abberline and his relationship with the killer, and it seems to me not out of the question that our forger was influenced by and even borrowed from this cheesy little movie. But here's my problem. I don't even know if the film (which was a made for TV movie and not released in theaters or, I believe, on video right away) was ever even broadcast in England. The film was made in 1988. Does anyone know if it appeared back then on TV in England or is available on video over there or was in the late '80s or anything like that? Thanks for any help. This all proves nothing at all of course, and is just a bit of Sunday fun. All the best, --John PS: Two or three more things - in the movie Caine as Abberline several times looks at his sketch of the killer or at the letter and addresses the killer calling him, in clenched teeth, "you bastard." It seems to be almost his pet name for the murderer. The diarist writes "Abberline Abberline Abberline Abberline / The devil take the bastard." And he refers to Abberline as "the bastard" several other times. Also, Abberline goes to Dr. Gull initially to ask him about "madness." "Doctor," he says, "tell me about madness." He has several conversations with Gull about what madness is. It's a key point in the movie -- the contemporary redefinition of madness and insanity. At one point the diary leaves these lines intact in an otherwise struck out poetry passage in the diary: "Am I insane? Cane, gain" Now, who was it that played Abberline again? Perhaps this is all just wordplay on my part. But I thought it was fun. Finally, Abberline in the film is fighting a battle with the bottle and several times, when he resists falling, he says he won't be beaten by "them" (the forces of the public pressure and the police commission and the killer, etc.) The diarist writes: "Abberline Abberline I shall destroy that fool yet..." A strange choice of language for the murderer -- who is not really in a battle to destroy a police officer, after all, except in a movie as seen from the police officer's point of view. Anyway, those are some goofy morning thoughts.
Author: Tee Vee Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 10:50 am
Hi John, That B movie was indeed shown on British TV. on more than one occasion. I remember it being shown as early as 92. I thought it was rubbish and have never watched it since. so i wwouldn`t of seen the links. The exact dates I am not sure of. Tee Vee
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 11:19 am
Thanks, Tee Vee, I'm not really even saying that there are any links. This could all easily just be my active weekend imagination. It most likely is. But the diary does seem repeatedly to dramatize a "mano-a-mano" struggle between Fred and the killer and so does this movie in very similar language and similar ways, and the overlap in lines, melodrama, and stuff (which could just be inevitable result of both texts being about the same vague and over-the-top version of history) does seem at least to offer an interesting comparison. Wouldn't it be funny if one of the sources the forger eventually confesses to using is the goofy Michael Caine TV movie? All the best, --John
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 01:44 pm
PROOF POSITIVE BY MELVIN HARRIS I have stated that Paul Begg is being dishonest in his treatment of Alan Gray and the Sphere book issue. Now he offers a reply which clinches my claim. His guilt should be obvious to everyone. He writes "what makes it so certain that it was the first week and not the second week and not the third or fourth week of September? Or the first week of October ?" Now that is truly dishonest because the answer is contained in the first paragraph of my post of 22 April. The crucial sentence reads: "Gray's records MADE AT THE TIME confirm his statements.... The book first mentioned to him in August 1994 WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE SPHERE BOOK IN THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 1994." There is something very odd about a man who refuses to face the meaning of such uncomplex statements. So let me repeat the same information in an even simpler form. GRAY HAS A RECORD MADE IN THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 1994 WHEN HE WAS GIVEN A NEW SET OF INSTRUCTIONS. Those instructions listed the 'evidence' that Mike claimed he could produce to back up his story. The full list has not yet been published, but it included a copy of a book used to provide a quotation found in the Diary. The quote was highlighted and its source identified as the Sphere book, then said to be with his solicitor. Guided by this list, Alan Gray first went to the named auction house and asked to inspect their records. This request was refused. After that he contacted 'The Sunday Times at Mike's request, and supplied them with a number of tapes made by Mike. The sequel has already been recorded on this site. To pretend that Skinner's words did not invite comment from Alan Gray is simply grotesque. His words were provocative and automatically invited a retort. Alan is repeatedly called on to give evidence in Court. His credibility depends on an unblemished record. Then Skinner comes along and tells him that a former client of his has alleged that Alan has been manufacturing false testimony with the aid of Booze! Skinner also asked for a comment on a letter to Mike dated 15th Oct 1986. When Alan rightly repudiated Mike's lying account Skinner wrote back saying: "You maintain that'... you never get clients drunk in order to extract stories or confessions from them. 'This clear statement conflicts with what Mr. Barrett has claimed (on tape) and in a private letter. People will draw their own conclusions. I note that you make no comment about your letter to Mr. Barrett dated October 15th 1996." ( Letter of April 12th ) So Skinner WAS trying to provoke comments from the start and was then prepared to sink so low that he tried to use the statements of a thoroughly discredited serial liar as a form of taunt. But if he wants to play that dangerous game I now call on Skinner to use other statements made by Mike which attack other people, including Robert Smith and Paul Feldman and Skinner himself. After all honesty demands an even hand. Melvin Harris (M. Birchwood)
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 07:12 pm
Dear John Re Your comments on the Michael Caine 'movie' of JTR. As I remember, it was inspired by the centenary of the murders, and was a "made for television" movie that was advertised as "at last revealing the true identity of Jack the Ripper". I was a little disappointed that they chose Gull, but nevertheless some of your comments struck a chord with me. Firstly, I too would like to spend some time kissing Jane Seymour for no apparent reason. Secondly, it is a shame you fell asleep, for the end of the film is exactly as you predicted - i.e. Abberline stumbled across the ripper in a failed murder attempt, although these days it would be called 'entrapment'. Your 'quotes' from the movie could be explained by that word 'luck, but if indeed the thing is a forgery, it would seem most likely that it was written about 1988/89 and inspired by the centenary of the Whitechapel murders and the centenary of Florie's trial. Both apparently received much publicity. I'm afraid you've managed to put me in one of those "Oh no the diary must be a forgery" type moods, although rest assured a good night's sleep will put paid to that as, let's face it, the movie and the diary were inspired by the same series of events, so it is very likely that they would contain the same material, i.e. all the malarkey about being left handed. What would be interesting John, would be if you were to watch the movie again and note the order in which the quotes you say match with the diary are made. I.E. Do they correlate with their order in the diary? On the whole John, a very interesting post, if a pretty trashy movie. Take care Peter.
Author: Stephen Powell Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 09:50 pm
hello tee vee, i monitor these boards daily to keep up with your rationale of the diary. i dont practice jokes of these kinds and all i have stated is the truth. the punchline comes when one of the people i have mentioned earlier,come forward and disclose the whole affair but i am not holding my breath. i dont know if you all,except for ivor,realised that i said that it was me who wrote the lines in the diary that said: victoria,victoria the queen of them all of sir jack she knows nothing at all. a lot of the other verses where half-written by other members of the band i was living with. the idea for poems in the diary came from steve park and anne graham. carry on gang steve powell
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 29 April 2002 - 04:24 am
Melvin Harris's latest in his time-wasting and harassing personal vendetta doesn't even deserve the dignity of a reply. Keith Skinner did NOT ask Alan Gray to reply to Mike Barrett�s allegations but cited those allegations as an example of why he wanted to interview Mr Gray. The statement �Gray's records MADE AT THE TIME� does not prove me to be dishonest. I appreciate the new bit of information - that Mike revealed a whole list of evidence � and await the sort of precise dates and verbatim statements Melvin Harris demands from others.
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 29 April 2002 - 06:11 am
Hi Tyler: Thanks. Have a tuna and anchovy pizza for me! Unadulterated pleasure, especially with a glass of ice-cold Italian water (or lager, but I'm not drinking so I have to have the water). Hi Peter: I don't think it is possible for you to "spend some time kissing Jane Seymour for no apparent reason." The reason would be all too apparent. And if I may extend my warmest congratulations to Paul Feldman, who got married to Shani yesterday and will, I hope, spend a great many happy years with her. And at the risk of sounding very cheesy, I was deeply moved by the amount of love and happiness shown for and towards them. They are very lucky.
Author: P. Ingerson Monday, 29 April 2002 - 08:40 am
Hi John O., The Michael Caine "TV movie" was originally made as a mini-series of two feature length episodes. It's possible that some material would've been removed when the episodes were edited together to make a movie. If so, the full length version might contain even more similarities with the diary...
Author: John Omlor Monday, 29 April 2002 - 09:00 am
Thanks, The one I watched (until I fell asleep) was the "two feature length episodes" one, broadcast back-to-back (which might explain why I didn't make it all the way through). I'm not surprised, but I am amused and intrigued to learn that there is also a "close-call" episode near the end of the film, where Abberline almost catches Jack in action, since the very same thing happens in the diary (at about the same place in the story) and there is no actual, historical precedent for it. How strange. Still smiling about all the little similarities, but finding it hard to believe that this diary that has kept us all so busy for more than ten years could have been influenced by and even borrowed directly from something as goofy as Michael Caine and his buddy "George" chasing around the East End on the television. --John
Author: P. Ingerson Monday, 29 April 2002 - 09:12 am
Hi, John Don't knock that Michael Caine version too much. It's what got me interested in JtR in the first place, believe it or not. Well, sort of... I went to see a screening of it a London's National Film Theatre a few years ago. There was a debate organised afterwards which was far more interesting than the on-screen adventure. I came away, wondering if Michael Caine had got the wrong man after all!
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 29 April 2002 - 09:49 am
Hi John There's also a commonly available novelisation of the TV movie which could have provided goodness knows what other inspiration. The rub is: who did it inspire?
Author: Tee Vee Monday, 29 April 2002 - 11:25 am
POP Quiz psycho`s diaries Pt. II Dec/5/--. "I wonder if he will enjoy what he is going to get! He`ll get what he richly deserves. A box of chocolates? Ha-ha. You didnt expect that." this is another diary written by someone who went on to kill 8 people. injuring 6 (Thats a clue in itself) FINAL INPUT IN DIARY Dec/-/-- "today i feel funny. Jitters up my bones all over the place. Palpitations, anger, all thats there. I got too much inside me. Today it must all come out. I cant understand my violent impulses. I don`t know what is wrong with me. Today I must do it. There is no other way out. I`ve got to see it through. My head really pounds. I`m all shaky. Its time to die. I dont mind if the contents of these diaries are made public, what difference will it make anyway? So you have my permission to read them. I only wrote them to ease my mind, let it all out, what i felt Maybe they`ll do some good?" Well just thought as i was reading them, see if anyone else had an interest in this guys diaries. Not a serial killer, but a mass murderer. Anyone know who it is ???? the clues are there
Author: P. Ingerson Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 04:14 am
Hi, Tee Vee Just a guess, but are the quotes from the forged Hitler diaries?
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 04:55 am
Hi Tee Vee, Too fragmented, too melodramatic, too utterly predictable (whatever that means) and voices too undeveloped to be real... 'Someday a rather interesting account of my doings will see the light I hope - although I shall not be able to revise the proofs - but it will show a side to the picture that people now in this jaundiced time don't understand.... I have left a pretty full record.' Not a killer this time, but one who hopes time will reveal all about his 'dark' side. Love, Caz
Author: Tee Vee Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 06:20 am
well the very partial quote from last diary input is one of thousands of inputs into a series of diaries that this young man had compiled since he was a child. maybe as young as 12. He`s name was Frank Vitkovic, and on the 8th o december 1987 he went out with an M1 Carbine and went to a post office building in Scott street Australia, And picked off 8 workers injuring a further 6. Eventually in this seige he was tackled and hes gun (which if he`d known how to use properly would no doubt of killed many more. He was losing for bullets for everyone he was firing, due to him not knowing how to cok this weopon properly) was taken from him, at which point he jumped through a window. he was on the eleventh floor at the time. Some of his diary inputs sort of resemble the Maybrick diary. And this couldve also been an insperation for the diary writters. 1987. and the rumour of the Maybrick diary and that it come from Australia. Were the forgers inspired by this ???? just a thought.
Author: Tee Vee Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 06:28 am
Caz, Is it Darth Vaders diary ??? And sorry Mr P Ingerson. I think you misread Kiled 8 for 8000,000 and injured 6 as 16,000,000 Sorry matey. not thre hitler diaries. take care guys. Off to work now. yours truly Tee vee