|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 28, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Thoughts on the diary:
Archive through May 28, 1999
Author: Mark Rathwell
Tuesday, 25 May 1999 - 03:53 pm |        | I'm new to the board so please excuse any retreads I may bring up. I have read the Ripper diary as well as Paul Feldman's book on the suject. I have also read a number of the criticisms on the diary's authenticity. My honest feeling about this is that I don't know what to think! :-) The diary's supporters haven't convinced me that the diary is 100% genuinee. On the other hand, the diary's detractors haven't convinced me that it is a recent fraud.
It would be nice if the diary were, in fact genuine, because we'd finally have solved the mystery. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever be able to prove the diary beyond a reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, I have a thought on what the diary may be if it isn't genuine. There seems to be enough evidence to suggest that the diary isn't a modern forgery but is probably at least sixty years old. As I was reading "Dracula" by Bram Stoker this weekend, I couldn't help but think that of the diary as a possible unfinished novel, done in the same vein as Dracula. What if some aspiring author had attempted to write a novel based upon journal entries, much the way Bram Stoker did with Dracula? This would explain the diary's age and why it wasn't linked with Maybrick previously. Perhaps the diary wasn't a deliberate hoax but rather the work of an aspiring author that mistakenly saw the light of day. Just a (bizarre) thought. What are your thoughts? |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 25 May 1999 - 05:32 pm | | Mark -
Welcome to the Casebook. And especially on such a hot topic as the Maybrick Diary! You're either very brave or a glutton for punishment, but I hope you enjoy your time here.
Your suggestion that the Diary might, in fact, be only a work of fiction is intriguing, but I don't know that it could hold water. The primary objection to it would simply be that it couldn't be published without a massive libel suit coming from the Maybrick family.
Now, you might object that never were the Maybricks mentioned by surname. This is true, but remember that Mike Barrett (so he says) was able to figure out the Diary's author was supposed to be James Maybrick. Mike is a good man in his way, but not a towering intellectual. If he could figure it out, the reading public at large (or even a relatively clever publisher - there are such, you know) could do so. Additionally, the Diary is filled with presently unimpeachable references to the Maybricks, (one of the points raised in its favour) so it could never see the light of day without massive rewriting and/or disguising.
Secondly, the language of the diary itself would be a block to its seeing a bookshop, with its language about "whores" and "bitches" and all other unpleasant words and thoughts. Jay McInerney might have been able to get away with such things in "American Psycho," but modern society is, sadly, much coarser and boorish than (say) sixty years ago.
Those are only two thoughts off the top of my head, and I'm sure some of the other good folk in the parish (as Paul Begg calls us) will add to them.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 01:51 am | | Only one problem with the libel suit, C-M. You can't defame the dead.
Dela |
Author: Julian
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 01:51 am | | G'day Mark, CM, everyone,
I'm just gunna chuck in another twist (wriggle, wriggle) to the Diary saga. I know I'm gunna get jumped on from a great height with this one but being the imaginative person that I am I thought I'd see if I can't get some ideas about this one.
Here we go. What if the Maybrick Diary was actually taken from another diary. The original being written by Jack himself. If the Maybrick's came across this this original diary, how difficult would it be to do a bit of embelishment and implicate certain members of their own family?
No Shirley, I'm not having a go mate. I'm just throwing in another idea.
Jules |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 04:18 am | | Matthew -
True enough, you can't defame the dead, therefore the writer/publisher of this putative work of fiction could not be held to have libelled James Maybrick. However, if, as Mark proposes, the "Diary" were inspired by Stoker's then-recent novel, other members of the family, principally Florie, Michael and Edwin, may have had legitimate cause for legal complaint. I think this was most probably C-M's intended point.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Mark Rathwell
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 10:10 am | | Hi Christopher,
Thanks for the warm welcome. Your comments on my idea certainly got me thinking. Let's throw a bit more fat on the fire here. Certainly, there is always the possibility of a libel suit but I think we're overlooking one small issue: this diary was not published until 1992 or 1993. It could very well have sat unknown in an attack for fifty plus years as a work of unpublished fiction. The Maybrick's wouldn't have launched a libel suit because they wouldn't have seen it and neither would anyone else! :-) It could very well have been a work in progress that wasn't intended to be found.
Your second point is a very good one. The language would have been an impediment to getting the book published. But again, this may very well have been an unpublished draft or manuscript. In addition, there have always been fringe publications with surprising references to coarse language, sexuality, violence etc - even in the 1930s.
Of course, this is just a thought that popped in my head. It probably has no merit but I couldn't help but think of it as I leafed through Stoker's book.
Thanks for writing
Mark |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 10:24 am | | Hi Mark!
Given the actual publication date of the "Diary", no libel charge could be issued - but I thought you were suggesting that this book had been written some decades ago, presumably with a view to swift publication - in which case, it could well be libellous.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 10:47 am | | Hi Guy,
(I'm talking about the diary as a whole here) I think even if the diary had appeared sixty or seventy years ago you'd still have a tough time making a lawsuit out of it. A hoax diary would be defamatory of James but I'm not sure about the rest of the family. Imputing that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper doesn't necessarily make it defamatory to the family. Generally, you don't get to pick your family members (spouses excluded). Just because a defamatory allegation is made against one person doesn't mean that it's defamatory of all family members. Otherwise every defamation proceeding would end up with multiple plaintiffs. I do see your point of view though.
And there are lines in the diary which are probably defamatory towards certain people, eg Hopper, Lowry, Florie. But each imputation must be examined on it's merits.
Dela |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 02:07 pm | | Mark, Dela, Julian, Guy -
No, you can't defame the dead - though you can certainly try. What I meant (and apologise for not making clearer) was that the libel suit would come from the surviving Maybricks - were the Diary published within 10, 20 or even 30 years after the events it describes. Florence, for example, for its portrayal of her as an adulteress (which she was, of course, but that didn't become public knowledge until her trial). James' brothers, perhaps, or James and Florrie's children; after all, here is a book purporting to come from their husband/father/brother identifying himself as one of the most notorious murderers of all time. Whatever they might have thought of James, such a book would be a libel on the Maybrick name, and I have no difficulty in picturing their trying to get an injunction to stop its publication or filing a libel suit.
It would be the same, I think, as if I took the name "Matthew Delahunty" and created a diary identifying him as the Zodiac, with such a diary chock-a-block with intimate details of his life, loves and personal family history (hmm - now there's a thought!) ;-)
As far as the Diary being a transcription fitted up to frame Maybrick, you're closer to the mark than you know, Jules! One theory currently making the rounds is that the Diary is a transcription of a lost original, though the theory still maintains the original to be the work of James Maybrick. I am also familiar with another theory that links 2 people as the Ripper, one forging the Diary to send the other to the gallows.
Well, I've had my say. Go on, smack me down again.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Julian
Thursday, 27 May 1999 - 12:29 am | | G'day CM, everyone,
The thought I was having was that maybe an original diary by JtR was found by someone (no-one in particular) and that person/s decided to create their own bit of personal history by changing certain extracts to implicate their own family.
Like maybe if I came across a diary written by the assassin of JFK then perhaps I could write a diary implicating a Rosensomeone in the assassination. This would certainly bring attention and a few bucks in my direction. Um, not that I'd want that to happen, I enjoy my privacy.
Anyway, that's one idea I'm entertaining at the moment. But go for it CM, I'd like to hear more of your theory if it doesn't compromise an idea you have.
Jules |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 27 May 1999 - 05:47 am | | Hi All!
What a carve-up!
Florie very nearly DID end up on the gallows, didn't she? What if Michael Maybrick and others THOUGHT James could have been JtR, possibly via some anonymous busybody who revealed some 'damning' information, true or otherwise?. This person could even have threatened to go public with what he 'knew'.
Michael would then feel forced to sort something out to save the family reputation, and more importantly his own, being a top mason and famous musician. He could not have afforded the scandal of even a possible JtR connection being suggested, whether true or not.
Could this 'sorting out' have included setting Florie up? And did someone (the actual hoaxer maybe) show Michael the diary in its original form, in an attempt to convince him to worry about old arsenic-arsed James?
Have at me, I can take it!
(Don't I always? :-))
Love,
Caz |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Thursday, 27 May 1999 - 11:21 am | | Hi all,
C-M, if anyone wants to make a diary about me then they can go ahead - because as far as I'm concerned right now any publicity is good publicity! Life - boring. Loves - none at present. Personal family history - lots of it - most of it detailed in court documents!
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Thursday, 27 May 1999 - 11:23 am | | Hi all,
C-M, if anyone wants to make a diary about me then they can go ahead - because as far as I'm concerned right now any publicity is good publicity! Life - boring. Loves - none at present. Personal family history - lots of it - most of it detailed in court documents!
Dela |
Author: Julian
Thursday, 27 May 1999 - 09:49 pm | | G'day Dela,
I've actually been investigating the quite secret but passionate liaisons between your good self and Dame Edna. I'm aware that Edna has been keeping a diary but it's hard to tell if the writing's hers or not. In one of the photo's I've got of Edna in her/your bedroom there seems to be a MD scratched into the wall near the bedhead but I can't be sure.
I've found one of her earrings near a piece of grafitti which said something about the Dames name is not the Dames name, but I haven't worked that one out either.
Anyway mate, I'm still working on it.
Jules |
Author: Caz
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 05:25 am | | Hi All,
Poor Dela! All that gladdy arranging to keep Edna and her appalling kids happy. And covering up for her transvestite activities when she hits the town as the gorgeous Les Patterson (whoarr!).
You really should come out of that closet, mate. You would have our undying sympathy with your position (unless you were in the closet canoodling with Madge, that stunning bridesmaid, oh God, sorry, did I let the cat out of the bag? :-) :-))
Well, Jules and I have started your diary for you. Don't say we're not trying to help!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 10:38 am | | Nice example of Feldmanesque/von Daniken language here where the writer asks a number of leading questions designed to set up their theory, the answers to which from a reasonable person are usually "no!"There is absolutely no information short of being in someones unpublished and so far unfound diary that even hints at the Liverpool Family Maybrick associating JtR with their recently-deceased loved one.
And the other comments are just piling further supposition on top of a very shaky foundation.
Peter |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 11:05 am | | Peter,
I have not got the slightest clue what you're on about.
The topic of conversation was whether the diary, which most people think is a forgery, is defamatory of the Maybricks - ie, the imputation that by stating that James was Jack the Ripper this somehow reflects on the character of each of his relatives.
Dela |
Author: Christopher George
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 11:45 am | | Hi, Peter:
How dare you sully the esteemed and much vaunted name of Erich von Daniken by dragging him (*kicking and screaming and murmuring no doubt of spacemen and pyramids*) into the diary debate. :-)
Chris George |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 04:36 pm | | Hi Caz,
I think Lacky Boy needs a diaper change, he's getting a little cranky. :-)
Have a good weekend. |
Author: Karoline
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 05:45 pm | | Having been away from this diary-stuff for a while, I have to admit, I don't know which of the above are serious suggestions and which are satirical snares for the unwary.
Peter (or Lackey 1)- which post is your critique directed at? Is it a serious response to one of the serious posts or a joke response to one of the jokes?
CMD(or Lackey 2) are you seriously suggesting the diary is actually a copy of an earlier original? or are you saying that this is what SOMEONE ELSE has said?(I'm so confused).
By the way, I think even Florie would have had a hard time suing this supposed 19th century diary-author for libel under English law. I THINK that for the charge of libel to be upheld, the allegedly 'libellous' allegation has to be provably untrue. And since Florie was an established adultress, she could not sue anyone for calling her that in public.
Her children would have had an even flimsier case. They would have had to show actually damage to themselves resulting from the accusations made against their parents in the diary. A very difficult thing to do, I tend to think.
Chris G (are you a lackey? Not so, I think) - can you prove that Erich von Daniken was not really a 700 year old vampire who gained eternal life by drinking the blood of women of the night, ripped up the Whitechapel ladies as part of his bicentennial rejuvenation program, and wrote the 'diary' to fool posterity, and as a handy little earner when the God-was-an-astronaut thing started running out of steam?
Do you admit this MIGHT be true? Or are you just too close-minded to consider all possibilities equally likely?
What more can you expect from a scouser? And a poet scouser at that.
love to all
Karoline |
|
|
|
|
