|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 June 2, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Thoughts on the diary:
Archive through June 2, 1999
Author: Joseph
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 06:56 pm |        | Isn't that sweet, momma comes to the defense
of her cub. LOL :-)
Ta ta honey |
Author: Caz
Saturday, 29 May 1999 - 03:58 am | | Hi All!
How's this one for a bit of tangen-thingy-whatsit humour? I actually composed it first, blimey!
Some Saturday morning Diary thoughts:
What if the diary was actually thought out and written some 25 years after the ‘traditional’ JtR murders? Can I ponder on this one for a few moments?
Anyone who cannot believe the diary content could have been composed this long ago, spare yourself the raised blood pressure and fast forward or go back to beddy-byes :-)
By 1913, Michael Maybrick was dead. Florie was living in America, a broken woman, alienated from her daughter, Gladys, and the rest of society.
James’ and Florie’s son, Bobo, had died tragically in 1911 when he ‘accidentally’ drank cyanide in mistake for water while engaged to be married (a tad drastic just to get out of the nuptials :-)). This reminds me of a poem my daughter heard at school. I can’t recall it perfectly, don’t know when it was written, but it goes something like,
“Poor little Johnny is no more,
For what he took for H2O
Was H2SO4” (Yes, I know, that’s not cyanide, I think it’s sulphuric acid, but the sentiment is there somewhere.)
Anyway, I digress.
Someone wants to frame James Maybrick for the Whitechapel murders? Maybe as a sick joke, maybe not for now (c.1913 for argument’s sake), but for several years or even decades down the line, way after the author’s own demise. Another red herring possibly, or actually hoping to sound believable? We don’t know, probably never shall.
In 1913, or thereabouts, which ‘facts’ about JtR were thought to be established? Do we now have the 5 canonicals firmly in place for example? Do we believe in the Dear Boss letters or graffito being Jack’s work? What about other smaller controversial details?
What I’m trying to get at is this:
Whoever wrote the diary would probably have used the ‘facts’ as he/she was aware of them at the time of writing, or use the stuff which was also believed by the authorities to be ‘fact’. The author could not predict what ‘evidence’ would be added or discredited later.
Going one step further, what if there was inside knowledge of the crimes by the author? The diary would be peppered with juicy previously unknown facts to add authenticity as each one was verified in years to come. It is also 25 years after 1888, so was the author relying on his own rusty powers of recall too? He may have blocked out some memories if he turned out to be our Jack himself. He still had to write the diary as if he was Maybrick, a man whose chronic mis-use and over-use of harmful substances would have to be reflected in his writing somehow. The real author could not be expected to pull this one off to perfection. He would be relying on guesswork, and his own limited knowledge of arsenic effects and so on, for much of the style and content. God, we still can’t agree today how arsenic affects people! Why should the diary hoaxer know any better?
The hoaxer’s ‘guesswork’ would include the details of Mary Kelly’s murder if he never entered her room. He may have acted as look-out, or even had no involvement, but had to make the best job of it when all the world had Mary down as a ripper killing.
That’s all for now. The flow’s gone.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Sara
Saturday, 29 May 1999 - 08:18 am | | Caz, and all - Thought this might be relevant - Trow (The Many Faces of JtR) puts forward that the diary, while old, is faked. "Chemical analysis of the ink used on what was undoubtedly a genuine Victorian scrapboof produced the likely result that it was a forgery, produced within 12 years either side of 1921. More recent work has moved these goalposts much nearer to our time, perhaps to the late 1980's, when Dr. Bond's post-mortem report on Mary Kelly was found"....."Michael Barrett claimed via the Liverpool Daily Post in June 1994 to have forged the diary himself. His solicitors withdrew his confession the next day." page 149, reprinted 1998. (Most of this I've already seen on this board - sure ya'll have as well.)
He then nails the coffin shut on the diary with the discrepancies that puzzle us all and what Sugden and Harris think of the diary.
As I am reading the diary to see what all the hullaballoo is about, I keep laughing at these discrepancies - in my head I see the author, who maintains ridiculously that of course there are discrepancies - it's because Maybrick remembered it wrong! or, the reports were wrong, or he did/didn't mention XYZ BECAUSE he was the ripper.
Any time a witness sees a suspect, with gravity, it's proclaimed something along the lines of... "who was undoubtedly Maybrick". Oh yeah? What a hoot.
Reminds me of my three year old making declarations and my own replies of, "Just because you say it's so, doesn't mean it's so."
I, myself, am partly in the business of making new things old, and old things older. If someone wished to defraud,... it's so easy (and wrong) to fool the general public. I've seen furniture, when manufactured hundreds of years ago and then faked at that time to seem even older, - so today what we have is an antique fake, but valuable because it's still antique, though fake. Sorry to digress.
I feel so sad for S. Harrison and her publisher... to be duped like that...
Takes my mind off my own worries! - hope all are well on this (our U.S.) holiday weekend.
Sara |
Author: Sara
Saturday, 29 May 1999 - 08:34 am | | Post Script - What was ol' Bobo up to in those days? Must have been one heck of a bachelor party to have downed the wrong stuff [was Jules involved ? ;-)]
Say, to disparage dad to vindicate mum? even after her 15 year sentence. Or just writing such nonsense out to try to understand it, with no thought of future publication. If anyone had cause to hate Michael (and embarrass him), it'd be the kids. And Edwin turned out to be such a "wuss".
On behalf of displaced, misunderstood Southern Belles everywhere.
Sara |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 30 May 1999 - 06:42 am | | Hi Sara and all!
Bobo was in Canada when he 'drank himself to death' in 1911. He'd just come off the phone to his fiancee, went into his lab and picked up the first colourless liquidy thing that came to hand (as one does in a lab!) Either he was incredibly stupid (like father like son?), or that was some phone-call with his girlfriend! So passionate that he didn't know where his head was?
Or maybe she'd just told him she'd got an anonymous letter saying his Dad was Jack the Ripper? We'll never know....
Yep, Jules was probably involved :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 30 May 1999 - 07:16 pm | | | Scattered throughout the diary are diatribes and threats to "Abberline" (Fredrick Abberline, the chief field detective in the JtR crimes). At the time of the murders he was relatively unknown to the public at large, except for an occasional newspaper quote. His name came into public notice as being involved with the case in the 1959 publication of McCormick's "The Identity of JtR". Prior to this, he is mentioned sporatically; the most notable being in H.L. Adam's 1930 "the Trial of George Chapman". The point is that if the diary is an old fake, did the hoaxer have certain knowledge (or an axe to grind) about Abberline's involvement in the crimes, knowledge that was generally unknown outside the confines of Scotland Yard? If it is a modern fake, the hoaxer probably read post-1959 books on the case describing FA's contributions and decided to incorporate him as an object of derision. Personally, I think the diary may be old as you and others suggest, Caz. One is almost tempted to postulate a rival detective or detective's family having some involvement in the diary's provenance, say 15 to 30 years after the murders. (I didn't read Feldman's book, maybe this was covered already?). |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 30 May 1999 - 08:37 pm | | Just popping in for a moment (and after seeing some comments above, glad to be popping out). . .
Peter - I understand what you're saying, though I'm not quite sure I follow why you're saying it (I am a bit thick, in any event). The original question was "could the Diary be an unpublished story?" from someone who has admitted reading Harrison and Feldman and is new to the boards. I thought the idea unlikely, because of both the actual people named in the document and its language, and all other discussion was (I thought) revolving about the possibility of an author being sued for libel if he went ahead and put the Diary out in the marketplace. A hypothetical discussion about a hypothetical case; in any event, anyone who knows me knows I think the Diary a fraud and a pox on Ripper studies.
Karoline - The theory that the Diary is a somewhat modern transcription of a lost original is recent, though it is not mine. It has been advanced to explain away why the Diary handwriting does not seem to match that of Maybrick. I shall attempt to find the proper reference, but you must trust me at the moment.
CMD |
Author: Christopher George
Sunday, 30 May 1999 - 09:23 pm | | Hi, CMD and everyone:
Yes the diary story is a decidedly ODD one, and one made odder by the posts of Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner today on the Cloak and Dagger board. Is it an old hoax or a new hoax--or as Shirley apparently still insists, the real McCoy. Melvin Harris insists that it is a forgery but the darn thing has NOT been made to go away. In fact, the diary is well represented in the new Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper, giving it a cachet of genuineness, without anyone such as Mr. Harris published in the same volume to provide the opposite view.
In my opinion, this thing is "not" a copy of a lost original. Whomever wrote this, wanted it to look like the diary of a man who did the Whitechapel murders. Scott Nelson made a very good observation that Abberline was little known until modern books and movies made him a leading character. That could be yet another clue that the diary is of relatively modern production.
Yours truly
Chris George |
Author: Sara
Monday, 31 May 1999 - 12:52 am | | Chris George - once again, an astute observation.
Just read the Cloak and Dagger board and still feel very sorry for those folks chasing their tails! ;-( Hoaxes, forgery, abuse and multiple personalty disorders - HELLO!
I am glad I read the diary, just so I can cross it off of the list.
This just in: Posthumous Darwin Award goes to...
"Bobo" (Maybrick) Fuller
for effectively removing himself from the gene pool. (Thank goodness Gladys and her husband chose not to breed.)
See you all on the other boards -
Sara |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Monday, 31 May 1999 - 10:18 am | | Hi all,
Chris George - I'm sure Melvin Harris is not going to let anything about the diary in the Mammoth Book (or any other book) go unquestioned.
As for the diary being a transcription - although it's possible it would seem strange that someone making a transcription would want to make it look like an original - from the use of an older book down to the differences in writing style and form throughout the diary.
Dela |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 31 May 1999 - 12:18 pm | | Dela:
Although they will deny it, and it may not even be their suggestion, the notion that the Diary could be a transcription of a lost original, seems to be an attempt by the Diary camp to dodge and weave and claim that Maybrick was the Ripper when all the pointers seem to be that he was not. That is, outside what is written in the diary itself, and apart from the equally questionable watch, as I have pointed out many times, there is not a shred of independent evidence to suggest that the historic James Maybrick, who passed from this life on May 11, 1889 in suspicious circumstances, could have been the Whitechapel murderer.
Chris George |
Author: Keith Skinner
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 08:51 am | | Chris. Thank you very much for your post of May 30th 1999. I'm sorry if I've inadvertently made the Diary story 'odder' by what I wrote in my response to Peter Birchwood. Could you possibly let me know how I've thickened the mix and I'll do my best to try and clear up any additional confusion which I've introduced!
Incidentally - thank you for clarifying, (courtesy of Adam Wood), the background to one of the three questions which you asked me to put to Mike Barrett, on your behalf, at the recent Cloak a Dagger event. Because of the nature of the interview and mike's revelations, made in front of several people the previous afternoon, that he had:- a) so1d the concept of the Diary to Doreen Montgomery over the telephone, (ie. telling Doreen of its existence), and then having to rapidly create it, in order to take it to London. b) Had for a long time believed that James Maybrick was Jack The Ripper and wrote the Diary on behalf of James Maybrick to prove his case. - I was forced to abandon many of the questions which I wanted to ask Mike - including yours, unfortunately. But you may like to post them on the Internet as I feel they should be addressed. As far as I am concerned, the more information that is out in the open, the better, as it will hopefully encourage constructive discussion and exchange of ideas, which may lead us to the truth of the Diary's provenance. |
Author: Keith Skinner
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 08:55 am | | Scott Nelson
Essentially - the inclusion of Abberline's name in the Diary has always interested me and your analysis strikes me as being particularly useful. Could you 1et me know the full extent of your trawl through the contemporary newspapers, so that we can test, (at some point), what I think is a valuable observation. It is precisely this type of constructive input which is so welcome - neither negative nor contentious but suggesting lines of research which return us to the primary sources. It's a pity you haven't read Feldy's book. Have you read Shirley's updated publication?
By the way, if a modern fake is postulated then we have to be looking at Billy, Anne and Mike - or at the very least, accounting for their presence in this story. |
Author: Valediktor
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 10:42 am | | | The diary subject had died here on the boards, now it has been 'raised from the dead,' yet again, by those interested in keeping a 'debate' on it going. Funny how it's only on these boards that it is being 'debated' anywhere. Those who know it for what it is should just ignore it totally. |
Author: Christopher George
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 10:55 am | | Hi, Keith:
Thank you for your response. As you know, I was unfortunately unable to attend the recent Cloak and Dagger Club meeting where you interviewed Mike Barrett. I am not necessarily saying that your handling of the interview was odd. I am merely saying that the whole diary story is extremely bizarre. The content of the diary is one item in itself--and very problematical, as you well know. But the different stories surrounding the diary are extremely odd. The following contains some of the points that I wanted you to bring up with Mike about Anne's story of a connection with the Maybricks.
The different diary provenance scenarios are as follows:
1) The diary was somehow obtained by Tony Devereaux, possibly from electricians who had done work at Battlecrease House, the Maybrick mansion in Aigburth, Liverpool, and the scene of James Maybrick's death in suspicious circumstances on May 11, 1889. (His wife Florence Elizabeth Maybrick was subsequently found guilty of his murder but reprieved after serving 15 years in jail.) The diary was given by Devereaux to his friend Mike Barrett in May 1991 in a brown paper parcel with the words, "Take it. I want you to have it. Do something with it." Mike took the parcel home and opened it in the presence of his wife Anne. They read through the diary and get to the closing words, signed
"Yours truly,
Jack the Ripper.
Dated this third day of May 1889."
We are told that Anne recalled (per Shirley Harrison): "I'll never forget Mike's face." And Mike said, "It was that signature -- it was like a knife going into me." Tony Devereaux died of heart failure in August 1991. Barrett took the diary to literary agent Doreen Montgomery in spring 1992. (All from Shirley Harrison, "The Diary of Jack the Ripper," 1st U.S. edition, New York, Hyperion, pp. 4-7)
2) Mike "confessed" to Liverpool Daily Post reporter Harold Brough that he forged the diary along with Anne, that he bought the scrapbook from an auction house and used ink from the Bluecoat Chambers art supply store, mixed with some sugar to give the writing an aged look. Mike reveals that he dictated the text of the diary and Anne did the actual writing. (Liverpool Daily Post, June 27, 1994). This confession was later retracted, but apparently is again the story that Barrett told in spring 1999 after a messy separation from his wife, who by now has reverted to her maiden name of Anne Graham. Anne's writing apparently does not match the writing in the diary and neither does Barrett's but he claims that she has multiple personality disorder that causes her to vary her handwriting.
3) Anne Graham has now indicated that the diary has been in her family for decades and that she arranged to give the item to Tony Devereaux so he would give it to Barrett. Her father Billy Graham owned it as far back as 1943. The story is confused, as given in Paul Feldman's book. Did it come from the Maybrick household through her grandmother Elizabeth Formby's friendship with Maybrick servant Alice Yapp? Or maybe there is an even better scenario to be had. As if to give a provenance to the diary that it has not heretofore enjoyed, she now appears to claim descent from James Maybrick's wife, Florence--one of the names that Florence used being Graham. (Maybe it was not either Anne Graham's intent or Paul Feldman's intent to create this appearance of a new provenance, but that is in effect what has happened. In my opinion, it may have more to do with Feldy's style and research methods that this effect has been created because there are no tangible facts whatever here.)
In Paul H. Feldman, "Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter" (London, Virgin Books, 1997), p. 141: "The next time Mike and I [Paul Feldman] spoke, he ended the conversation by screaming, 'Find Anne and ask her to swear on Caroline's life that she is not a Maybrick.'
"I was intrigued. The diary was in Mike's possession and recently he had suggested that there could be a connection to Anne through James Maybrick, or through Florence and a prison warder. . . . Subtlety no longer played a part in Mike's hints. Was Anne now an illegitimate Maybrick?"
p. 177--Interview with Billy Graham, Anne's father: "Billy Graham was born in 1913. . . . Billy's father William was apparently the illegitimate son of Florence. . . ."
p. 183: "In the meantime, Anne tracked down 'Auntie Mary.' . . . In all probability, Mary was the granddaughter of Florence Elizabeth Maybrick, the wife of Jack the Ripper."
And now Anne Elizabeth Graham (note the emergence of the similar middle name) says in the signed Introduction to "The Last Victim" written with Carol Emmas (London: Headline Books, 1998):
"If it is possible to choose one's ancestors I don't think the wife of Jack the Ripper and the woman convicted for his murder would have been my first preference!" (p. xv)
"During [the] meeting [with Paul Feldman] my father appeared to suggest that the reason for the journal's existence in our family was that his father was the illegitimate son of Florence Maybrick, born when she was an unmarried teenager." (p. xvii)
"Did Florence have an illegitimate child in Hartlepool and pass him on to another family to raise? If she had was that child my grandfather? Frankly, I had been ignorant of this story before that day and I am still not completely convinced. However, if it is true it could mean that Florence Maybrick was my great-grandmother." (p. xviii)
Odd? Bizarre? Strange? Convoluted? The diary itself is one phenomenon in itself, but the story surrounding the diary does not improve with time.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher George
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 11:46 am | | Hi, Valediktor:
You stated: "The diary subject had died here on the boards, now it has been 'raised from the dead,' yet again, by those interested in keeping a 'debate' on it going. Funny how it's only on these boards that it is being 'debated' anywhere. Those who know it for what it is should just ignore it totally."
Your advice could be one approach to the problem but then again there are now three books on the market based on the premise that the diary is real, and people worldwide are reading those books and believing that it might be true that James Maybrick may be Jack the Ripper. The Maybrick theory is "out there" whether we like it or not, much as the now discredited Royal theory expounded by Spiering and Knight and others in the 1970s was "out there" and still takes in the unsuspecting. I really think it is a bad idea to ignore the diary and pretend it does not exist.
Chris George |
Author: Valediktor
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 12:46 pm | | | Point taken Mr. George, and may I congratulate you on the preceding excellent post. |
Author: Dan
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 02:29 pm | | Good piece of summing up there Chris "...but the story surrounding the diary does not improve with time."
How about, for one minute, we forget the time scale between the murders and the discovery of the diary. Let's either put Anne Graham and Mike Barrett back to late last century or bring the murders forward. How would the police have dealt with them, the diary and their stories?
Any thoughts?
Cheers, Dan. |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 02:36 pm | | Hi All!
Okay, I'll come clean. It was my analysis of the Maybrick Diary content that eventually led me, via one of the Yours Truly letters written in 1888, to my own suspect for Jack the Ripper, or more precisely, JtR1, Walter Weedon Grossmith (my very own WWG :-)).
I'd be very interested to know if Mike, Anne, Billy or Tony Devereaux had ever heard of this dude Weedon, or shared any of his theatrical or literary knowledge. This would help me to decide if any of them were capable of creating the diary content at all, let alone in about a fortnight!
I'll elaborate further if required, so long as I don't get howled down TOO dreadfully for this little piece, but Coronation Street and dinner beckon, so I must away for now.
BTW, there is no diary 'camp' as I see it, because no two people seem to agree on what it is, or when it was written, or how it was written, or by whom it was written, or how it came to light.....etc etc ad nauseam. It has definitely not been laid to rest. We can be certain of that.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 02:43 pm | | POINT OF INFORMATION
Christopher George and others interested in the 'miracle' of the provenance of the Diary might like to see what Feldman himself had to say.
I quote from Feldman's letter to the Fortean Times dated 20th October 1994:-
"...Firstly I need to correct your last paragraph. A good few weeks after Mr Barrett's article appeared in the Liverpool Echo a deal with Ted Turner, on behalf of New Line Cinema (makers of 'The Mask'), was concluded with MIA Productions [Feldman's company]. Owners of the film rights for the "Diary of Jack the Ripper". The transaction was considerable and it was the first time that any book about Jack the Ripper has ever been sold for film rights. The transaction was concluded as a result of research carried out by MIA Productions which uncovered information about the Diary which clarified its provenanace."
These same sentiments were echoed by Robert Smith at the time.
Melvin Harris. |
|
|
|
|
