Archive through April 23, 1999

** 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 April 23, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through April 23, 1999

Author: Leanne Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 04:29 pm
G'Day Tav, Now that you have polished off the 'Diary', I suggest you read Paul Feldman's book: 'Jack The Ripper, The Final Chapter'. This book supports the 'Diary', by telling of the 'extensive and detailed research' made on it. Then you should read other books on this subject, and you'll see the arguments that point to the 'Diary' being a forgery, are convincing too. The 'Diary' was the first book I read too and had me convinced. Now that I've read 8...... I'm not so sure!
Author: Leanne Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 04:45 pm
Tav, You remind me that the 'Diary' refers to two additional victims. Donald Rumbelows book: 'The Complete Jack The Ripper', tells me of the 'popular rumour' that the murderer scrawled the message: "Five; fifteen more and then I give myself up", on the wall after the 2nd accepted victim. If this 'popular rumour' is fact, then the real JTR killed not two, but three other victims.....INTERESTING! -LEANNE AGAIN!
Author: tav1888 Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 06:10 pm
Thanks for the response, Leanne! I appreciate it, and you're right, this alleged Diary does indeed seem to have some rather significant credibility issues. I have read the exchanges regarding its authenticity in the Casebook (and in particular, Mr. Harris' comments), and it's obvious that each side has ranged its experts like chessmen on a board. For the purposes of clarity, I should point out that I was only attempting to address one problematic aspect of the alleged JTR watch; namely, the motivation for inscribing the marks on a woman's watch, rather than that of a man. I was not making any comment on either the DIary or the watch being authentic; rather, I was trying to point out that the fact that this was a woman's watch might not be fatal to its authenticity if the other posited facts in the Diary are taken as a given. On a personal note, I would like to add that although I am enjoying reading about JTR and the various theories concerning his identity, I will probably only contribute sporadically to this site. I witnessed with some shock the vitriol that various contributors to the Casebook seem delighted to heap on each other, and have no intention of getting caught up in it myself. Personally, I think it's a shame that these persons (who are obviously sincere and well-educated) need to resort to such personal attacks. Especially when one considers that the odds of ever proving to the satisfaction of everyone JTR's identity are nil. Hopefully, everyone involved in this debate will calm the heck down and realize the import of what they are arguing. When they do, maybe I'll poke my uneducated, tentative nose back in here. Love and kisses, TAV
Author: Leanne Monday, 19 April 1999 - 01:30 am
Dear TAV, I wasn't trying to put 'heap' on you, at all. I wouldn't put 'heap' on anyone. I merely suggested your next ripper book,(there are so many), because when I read your post, I thought: "This guy is following the same 'path' as I did", ie believing that the 'Diary' was 100% authentic. Keep reading and the JTR drama gets more interesting! Respecting You....LEANNE!
Author: Bob_c Monday, 19 April 1999 - 03:14 am
Hi all, My 2p about the diary and the watch.. About the watch. If my information (evidently supported by photos of the watch) is true then it is a ladies model, and would therefore not have been used by James Maybrick. Any suggestion to the contrary will need to be supported by strong evidence IMHO. The diary being a hoax is indicated by a number of errors, including the glaring error over the Liverpool hostelry where James is supposed to have decided to start his games. We only need to take, as example, the story of Kelly's key. If Maybrick had been Jack, he would have known that Kelly's door had a 'spring latch', a lock that closes automatically without a key, the key only being needed to open it. Therefore Jack would not have written in his diary that he locked her in and threw the key away, he didn't need to. Unfortunately Shirley Harrison's edition is incorrect when it claims, to cover this evident mistake, that Joe Barnett stated that the key had been subsequently found. There is absolutely no evidence to meet that claim. Barnett stated that the key had been lost for some time and entrance was gained by reaching through a broken window to the nearby door and drawing back the latch. The diary does seem to be a miserable hoax. I was not able to be present at the C&D recently where Mike Barrett, the possessor of the diary, spoke but from the postings and remarks from a number of those who were present, he did nothing to improve this image. Concerning the remarks about evident hostile posts on the board. There are at present a number of silly little persons trying to disrupt the board. They are even so clever that they spend time writing to themselves in public to try to provicate others. These silly little bastards are told herewith that they'll need a large number of IPs, one for each supposed name, if they want to have the slightest chance of success. Further they should know that every one of us has a certain way of expressing ourselves. Look at certain posts above. regards Bob
Author: Caz Monday, 19 April 1999 - 06:22 am
Hi Bob! Thanks for the valuable info about the key! Great stuff. Keep it all coming. You make more sense of things than I ever could (IMHO, grin) Love and cheers! Caz
Author: Matthew Delahunty Monday, 19 April 1999 - 09:19 am
Hello all, It's good to see that this board has finally returned to issues of the diary. Tav, don't get too frustrated by the hate posts that go around. It's best to ignore them. And it's not the intelligent people who are posting them - only the drop-kicks (sorry, it's an Australian term, read "dead-heads") who don't have anything constructive to say. Although sometimes the intelligent ones can get a little hot under the collar! Bob, the diarist never mentioned locking the doors. His (her?) merely stated "I had a key, and with it I did flee." There's no mention about locking it or throwing it away. Dela
Author: Christopher T. George Monday, 19 April 1999 - 10:00 am
Hi, Dela: You are indeed right that the text of the diary makes no mention of Maybrick throwing away the key. This notion arises from Shirley Harrison's text, as follows: "A few days after the murder, one newspaper reported that the key was now in the possession of the police. The rational explanation is that [Maybrick] locked the door behind him and once well clear, tossed the key away." (Shirley Harrison, "The Diary of Jack the Ripper," U.S. first edition, New York, Hyperion, 1993, p. 103) The tantalizing possibility arises that if the key was recovered days later, it might have held the fingerprints of the murderer. On the other hand, the press report of the found key was possibly erroneous. In his "Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth," (London: Headline Books, 1996, p. 215), Bruce Paley reports: "The key to the room evidently disappeared on the night Barnett moved out. It was never found." Of course, Paley's theory is that Joe Barnett was Jack and that he used the key for easy entrance on the night that Mary Jane Kelly was killed. Chris George
Author: Bob_c Monday, 19 April 1999 - 11:59 am
Hi all, Yep, Dela, I've put my foot in it once more, going from memory (and the book). But still the diary claims that Jack had the key, and why would he take it if not to lock up? As far as I know, Barnett said only that the key had been lost for some time, and entry was gained as known. I have not read any evidence that testifies that the key went lost with Barnett's departure, or even that the window was broken during the supposed fight. There was a witness to Joe's leaving and she did not testify anything like that. This means, of course, that the key was lost not later than the breaking of the window, which may even have been broken for this reason i.e. the key was lost. Barnett would not have needed a key as he knew how to enter the room. Jack could have, probably did, know how to enter/leave, assuming that he entered the room together with Kelly and would have seen how the door was opened. Hi ho, people, I must now depart for some days, I ought to have been already away but one thing and another. Best regards, Bob
Author: Bob Hinton Monday, 19 April 1999 - 01:38 pm
Dear everyone, Fascinating stuff. Let me try an clarify a few points about the key. First off Barnett said that they opened the door by reaching in through the broken pane (it is just possible to do this with a great deal of difficulty)which means since they were doing this the key was missing. One of the panes was reported broken during the row which led to Barnett leaving but this couldn't have been the window they used to reach through because Barnet left that night. There were two panes of glass broken in the window and through one of these it must have been possible to reach the catch. Out of the four panes of glass only two offer access to the catch, top right and bottom right. We know that the broken panes were situated one on the top row and one on the bottom, therefore one of them must have been top right. Using Bowyers testimony he quite clearly identifies where the other broken pane was, bottom left, therefore the only access to the catch was through top right which means this was broken first(before Barnet leaving)and on the night of the row bottom left was broken. Just one more point before you get too swallowed up in this key business, what evidence do you have that MJK's door was locked before she was killed? In other words it is not vital that the killer had to be let into her room or use a key.
Author: Ashling Monday, 19 April 1999 - 06:48 pm
Hi y'all. BOB H: Think I'm missing something. Will you please clarify your sentence below? -- "One of the panes was reported broken during the row which led to Barnett leaving but this couldn't have been the window they used to reach through because Barnet left that night." Why does the date Barnett left have any impact on which window Mary reached through to open her door? Thanks. [Reply by keyboard will be fine - no need to resort to quill pen yet.] ;^) Take care, Ashling
Author: Bob Hinton Tuesday, 20 April 1999 - 03:56 am
Dear Ashling Because Barnett stated that 'we' reached in through broken pane. If he left the night the pane was broken he would not have had the chance to reach through, therefore the pane that they reached through must have been broken some time previous to his leaving. I built a mock up of the corner of Mary Kelly's room to test the reaching through theory, and it is not a simple matter of reaching through. The only way it was at all possible (without getting ridiculous) was to stand on the window ledge, support yourself with your right hand on the drainpipe and reach in with your left arm. I should point out I used tracing paper to simulate the glass. Don't forget this is still an operation that is extremely dangerous. In reality you would be putting your arm in a situation where it is surrounded by broken glass, one slip and its good bye arm. It is also extremely tricky. If I have identified the type of lock correctly, the knob to draw back the bolt is a small round brass knob about the size of a quarter, and this is turned like turning a dial, and all this with your fingertips. I carried out this experment many years ago after I read Bruce Paleys article in the magazine, I didn't think it was sufficiently of interest to photograph it!
Author: Christopher-Michael Tuesday, 20 April 1999 - 01:07 pm
Hello, all - An interesting discussion, this, and highlights one of the major problems with the Diary; that is, unless it contains an absolutely glaring, in-your-face anachronism that couldn't possibly be the words of an 1880s cotton broker, using its internal evidence to prove or disprove it is a frustrating and possibly futile exercise. The "key" business, for instance: Dela mentions the "I had a key" diary line. MJKs door was locked, and no one had a key. The diarist mentions a key, and that must be the explanation; the Diary must be real. Bob C tells us that the door to Number 13 was a spring lock, and the Ripper wouldn't have needed a key in any event. That must be the explanation, and the Diary is a fake (no offense to either gentleman intended, of course. Names used only for the sake of a feeble argument). The list, of course, goes on. The Diary mentions rings and coins around Annie Chapman. I don't beleive there were any coins. Other theorists whose opinions I respect believe there were - and we can't prove it either way from the evidence that has come down to us. . . The Diary mentions the "Poste House." Roger Wilkes tells us that in 1888, the place was called the "Muck Midden," and that would seem to be that. Except now, the arguments are heard that there may be evidence the place was called the Poste House in 1888 - or the diarist may have been referring to another place entirely. . . And what of the apparent neologisms in the text? They can be explained as either examples of words and phrases current though not yet noticed by the lingustic authorities of the day, or as phrases popped in by the recently-proposed copyist who transcribed Maybrick's lost original into the form we love and loathe today. . .and so on, ad infinitum ad absurdum. It would seem, at least in my own easily rebutted opinion, that looking to the text of the Diary for proof of its bona fides will not carry us far. What then? That is a question I'd like to throw out (and to be fair, it should probably be a separate topic, but I thought I'd address the worthy audience here first). IS there any other way of proving the Diary true or trash that will satisfy all but the most dyed-in-the-wool (you know who you are)? Ink tests? Paper tests? Ion migration? Locking Mike Barrett, Paul Feldman, Anne Graham and Melvin Harris in a room and letting them fight to the death? I don't believe the Diary is real. I would, however, reluctantly accept it were there some test or logical method that could prove its provenance beyond a reasonable doubt. What could that method be? Wondering aloud now that I am back, Christopher-Michael
Author: Edana Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 07:39 am
C-M, fascinating. It's like trying to prove that the Bible is real based on the text. Let's see, did God create the world in six actual 24 hour days, or is it analogy? There will always be those who take things literally. I don't believe that the diary is real either....that is to say, I don't believe it was written by James Maybrick. Just a gut feeling. Edana
Author: Matthew Delahunty Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 09:50 am
Hi C-M, I agree that you're not going to determine whether the diary is a hoax or not on the basis of applying the text to the facts of the Ripper case. It would be pretty easy to go and read every Ripper book and write a hoax which stood up to the known facts of the Ripper case. Unfortunately too many people from both sides have placed too much faith in contentious issues within the text and interpreted the text in a way which strengthens their argument, either for a hoax or for its authenticity. I have always advocated keeping an open mind in relation to any interpretation of the diary. The issue of the key and the coins are points of fact which are in contention. Some people accept the truth of them - others don't. I find it interesting that a forger would want to take a chance by claiming the truth of these when the evidence is inconclusive. Perhaps new documents will come up in the future which will prove whether the coins and the key story are fact or fiction. Until then they're as inconclusive as the diary. I was of the opinion that the text would be crucial in determining the diary's provenance, not so much in scrutinising it for its Ripper content but in scrutinising its Maybrick content. Surprisingly the Maybrick content is highly accurate whereas many Ripperologists have criticised the accuracy of the diarist's Ripper content. This I find puzzling. If the diary is a hoax then the hoaxer should, in all likelihood, be less accurate with the lesser known, harder to research facts of the Maybrick case. Yet the research would seem impeccable. If that is so then we should expect the same impeccability in regard to the Ripper content. My answer? Well the obvious solution is to accurately test the physical characteristics of the diary and come up with an accurate date. That's something which will take the proper technology and lots of money and a bit of independence - which as yet nobody has been prepared to do. Apart from that, it is essential to prove or disprove the claims of Anne Graham. If the diary has been in her family for a long period of time then the odds for a forgery lenthen considerably. Apart from that? Pray that new evidence comes to light on the facts of the Ripper case (eg lost files) or the Maybrick case (or his life) to disprove the diary. Until then there are sufficient arguments both for and against the diary. People can believe what they want and the argument will continue. Dela
Author: Caz Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 10:09 am
The last few posters (at least) convince me that one day we will get at the truth, whatever that may be. We have the joint brainpower and common sense, we have the dratted diary (don't burn it yet CM, grin), if we had the science too we'd be halfway there! Go go go! love, Caz
Author: Peter Birchwood Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 10:50 am
Christopher-Michael: I've been wondering about ways of proving/disproving the diary etc. If you take as an important link in the chain of evidence that because Florie had a child who became Ann Graham's grandfather, the diary has good provenance then it ought to be possible to prove/disprove the descent from Florie to Ann by dna. Maybe someone near CT could investigate costs and legality of exhuming Florie? For every point against the diary, someone can find a rebutal. Anyone who has read the more reliable books can see that it must be a forgery but how do you prove it? 1/ By checking background on the people associated with the diary and with the watch to see if there's any connection. We only have Mike's word that he didn't know the Johnsons. 2/ Can we date the diary book more exactly? Some have said that it's Edwardian: if so then that eliminates JM as the author. Is there a stamp or mark anywhere to show who published the book? It would be suspicious if there is a place anywhere on the book where a stamp might have been removed. 3/ Mike says that he gave the original disks, pens etc. to his sister. Has anyone interviewed her? Any more thoughts? Peter.
Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 03:25 pm
Dear Everyone, I'm totally new to this diary discussion so if I make any super blunders please excuse me. I have never really taken much interest in the diary before because it seemed to me that the wrong questions were being asked. Instead of asking Did Maybrick write the diary shouldn't we be asking instead Was Maybrick the Ripper? However now you've got me interested in the actual diary here are my initial thoughts. In the world of antiques provenance is proved by showing an unbroken chain from then till now. This chain can be documented, verbal on film anything you like but it must be unbroken. With the diary it appears to me we only have provenence back to Anne Graham, she says her father Billy gave it to her, but she has nothing else to back this up. You cannot accept verbal provenance from Billy because he is dead. What should have happened is that he should have sworn an affidavit to this effect before he died, he didn't, therefore the chain is broken. Can it be repared? There are only five possibilities: 1. Anne Graham is lying and got her father to lie for her. 2. Billy Graham did indeed pass the book to his daughter, but without inspecting it and therefore of no knowledge of its contents. In other words he thought he was passing down a ledger or something. This issue is vital because it may be possible to prove that the book has been passed down from father to son to daughter, but this is worthless unless it can be shown that each person was fully aware of its contents. 3. Billy Graham passed down a book he had received from his father, and he had inspected the contents and confirmed it was the diary. 4. If No 3 is the case either William Graham passed down something he had received from his mother, or William Graham created it. 5. Billy Graham created it. These are our only options. I do have trouble with the diary being passed down from father to son to daughter for the following reason. Where did William Graham get the book from? As far as I can make out he was supposed to have got it from Florence Maybricks solicitors, but where did they get it? The obvious answer from Florence doesn't make sense. Where did she get it from? Or is the scenario that she found it after James's death and somehow secreted it about her person during her arrest and trial? I can't really see the prison authorities letting her take it to prison with her. Has anyone found a list of her personal effects that was taken from her before she was jailed? If someone has and item one is Big black book that would certainly be interesting! However I can think of at least on scenario that fits the facts. The book has been in the Graham family for some time as perhaps a scrap book. As is usual with these family things it is handed down. When it reaches the end someone realises that they have here a book that has provenence stretching way back. What does it require to turn it into the diary, first of all you've got to lose the pages with aunt bessies cat on it and bingo - you have a genuinely old book that has genuinely been in the family for generations. A little creative penmanship and lo the diary is born!
Author: Caz Thursday, 22 April 1999 - 06:53 am
Hi All, Billy Graham, Anne's late father, was apparently not a great reader anyway, and found the writing in the diary too small and difficult to bother with, thinking it was just some family paperwork. I have some of my own father's written bits and pieces that I have not bothered reading yet for similar reasons. They look work-related and boring, and the writing is tiny and virtually illegible. He is sadly no longer alert enough, at 83, to make any sense of it for me, even if I wanted a transcript, which I don't. I personally do not think we need to dwell on whether Billy was related to Florie (I don't see it myself). What if a solicitor had instructions from someone's estate (not necessarily Flo's) to leave such a 'diary', possibly Edwardian in origin, with a certain family? (maybe from a connection with Elizabeth Formby and/or Alice Yapp for example?) Those instructions would remain confidential, wouldn't they? And if Formby was the recipient of said diary, she may have been told that the wishes of the person making the bequest were that she should 'keep it in the family', keep mum about it, and simply pass it down through the generations as one of the family 'heirlooms'. Don't forget that Formby was illiterate so, if she was an honest person and as good as her word, the person creating the 'provenance', and possibly the diary to boot, did a splendid job in ensuring it would one day come to light and cause such bloody mayhem! Thoughts? Love, Caz
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 23 April 1999 - 04:34 am
Hi Bob My understanding is that Billy said he inherited the "Diary" from a family member during his absence abroad during WWII and took possession of it in the late 1940s. I'm not sure where he having received it from Florence's solicitor's come into this. Billy Graham's statement is on tape and there is a transcript. A signed legal document would be nice but surely wouldn't make his claim any more true or false than it currently is.