|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The Real James Maybrick
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Real James Maybrick
Author: Stephen Powell
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 02:37 am |        | Howdy Ripperites.
Would you Shirley Harrison send me your new e-mail address,I have some more unbelievable info concerning JTR and the Diary.
I shall of course post this info to all of you at the casebook as soon as Shirley aknowledges my letter to herself.
Steve powell. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 07:51 am | | Hi Stephen:
I am glad to hear you say that you will be posting what information you have here at the Casebook after you contact Shirley Harrison. We look forward to seeing it. In the meanwhile, for your information, and to expedite matters, I can tell you that Shirley Harrison recently gave out her e-mail address on another board. It is shirleyharrison1@hotmail.com
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: shirley harrison
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 09:45 am | | | Caz....Keith has asked me to re-post our contribution to the board of Junwe 24 1999. Its a time line on the red diary. But I have to go out and cant access it. Can you be your usual silver lined funnel? thanks..I am in touch with Steve Powell......more anon |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 10:57 am | | Hi Shirley,
The time line on the red diary coming up:
By Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner on Thursday, July 29, 1999 – 03:20 am:
RED DIARY
"Regarding the investigation that we are assured is now going on concerning the cheque and the red diary, I would like it to be understood that I expect to see the results of that investigation, whether they prove that the cheque was for the red diary, or that the cheque had nothing to do with the diary. If the information is not posted on this site or if a truly excellent excuse for its non-appearence is not made, then I believe that we will all know who to blame."
Peter Birchwood June 15th 1999.
The story of the little red diary which Michael Barrett bought in 1992 was first related formally in his affidavit of January 5th 1995, in which he cites his occupation as "writer".
He said then: "..Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a red leather backed Diary for £25.00, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters (sic) year Book, I cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of £25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank account, Water Street Branch,Liverpool. When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address ...."
(The various other claims in this affidavit were investigated and proved inaccurate. The results appear in the recent 1998 edition of Shirley Harrison's "The Diary of Jack the Ripper."}
Keith Skinner started to investigate the red diary story in August 1995 and, with the full co-operation of Anne, traced the relevant cheque from Lloyds. She also happily gave him the diary itself, which is an 1891 "Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book" about two and a half by three and a half inches, covered with a silky maroon coloured fabric.
This appeared at the time, to be one of Mike's many red herrings, since the date on the cheque proved to be later than the period during which Mike was then claiming to have written the Maybrick diary.
By November 1995, Keith had taken research to a point where, should the red diary ever become an issue, his investigation could be reactivated. His account of this investigation is in Ripperologist Issue 23, June 1999.
At that stage, the documentation which Anne had provided, convinced Keith that she was telling the truth.
If Anne had a guilty secret is it likely that she would have gone to such lengths to help Keith accumulate evidence
which could have blown her story apart?
In April 1999, Mike himself re-focused our minds on the little red diary issue, at his Cloak and Dagger appearance. He claimed this time to have bought it in order to write the Maybrick diary, apparently between his telephone call to Doreen Montgomery on March 9th 1992 and his visit to her office on April 13th 1992..
(This statement has now been negated by two further contradictory claims.)
He said that in March 1992 he was broke and trying to think of ways to make money. So he decided that the diary of Jack the Ripper would make a good story. He had always thought James Maybrick was the Ripper (he has not explained why)..
He claimed that when he telephoned Doreen Montgomery he had NOT even written a word of the diary. It was no more than a twinkle in his eye. But he "sold" her the idea that he actually possessed the Diary of Jack the Ripper.
He then contacted an address in the Writers and Artists' Year Book, asking them to find him a Victorian Diary. This arrived, and as it was too small for his purpose he had to find another album or scrap book. He then dictated the diary to Anne from the WPC and she hand-wrote the material he read her into the scrap book which he purchased at an auction run by Outhwaite and Litherland..(in his affidavit he gives the date of the auction as the end of January 1990)
In view of this new claim we have now picked up the research which was "filed" by Keith in 1995. These are the facts.
1 On March 10th 1992 Doreen Montgomery wrote to "Mike Williams" (Mike, with his customary taste for drama used a pseudonym) confirming his telephone call the day before. She referred to the way in which "the import of this diary has affected your lives". Mike had told her of the strains and stresses the (allegedly, so far, non-existent) diary was having on his family. At the Cloak and Dagger meeting Mike repeatedly ignored Keith's invitation to elaborate on exactly how the Diary had impacted on their lives, despite the fact that his "distress" over the telephone had obviously made a deep impression on Doreen.
2 To give him the benefit of the doubt, we have to assume that March 9th 1992, is therefore when Michael began to research and create the diary on the WPC- although he has not stated as much himself. He has claimed that it took him about 12 days to complete.
3 Around that date (March 9th 1992) a well established secondhand book company had a call from a Mr Barrett who asked them to find him a Victorian Diary. We contacted the company who advertise in Yellow Pages (not in The Writers' and Artists' Yearbook). They cannot recall if he asked for an unused diary but they confirm that the request was extremely unusual and that it would have taken them two or three weeks to fulfill. They found an 1891 diary and it was sent to Mr Barrett on Thursday March 26th 1992, reaching him presumably for the weekend March 28th/29th 1992.
(We do not know if Mike specifically ordered an 1888/9 diary. Oddly, he has never commented on the useless, too late, date of the diary that arrived - only on its size)
The bill was for £25.
4 The cheque was not paid until May 18th 1992 and the bookseller has Mr Barrett marked as a "late payer". The cheque was signed by Anne Barrett but the rest was filled in by Michael.
Anne's explanation of this is, that when Michael asked her for the money, she was so "bloody mad" at such extravagence, when they were so broke, that she signed her name and threw the cheque across the floor for him to complete. This is probably why the cheque stub merely has written on it "book - £25".
5 Presumably, Monday, March 30th 1992, was the day on which Michael began a new hunt for a more appropriate book
6 We have not been able to establish the dates of Outhwaite and Litherland auctions over this time, since they are so fed up with "constant harrassment" (by other researchers, not by me), that they will not provide any further information. It would have been extremely useful had Mike ever produced, as promised,the receipt from Outhwaite and Litherland, since this would presumably have shown the date of the auction to have been between March 30th and April 13th 1992.
7 On Wednesday, April 8th 1992, Doreen Montgomery wrote again to Michael, confirming their meeting for Monday April 13th. He arrived at 11.30a.m. with the completed diary.
8 Michael Barrett called Shirley Harrison on June 21st 1999 saying that he did NOT write the diary and accusing Anne of schizophrenia. He alleged that she and Billy Graham, her father (who was dying of cancer), were the forgers and that he had been prepared to go to prison to protect her. He did not explain how the diary came into his possession or at what stage he knew that Anne and her father had written it.
According to our original intention research has now been completed, in the light of Mike's Cloak and Dagger disclosure. The results show that, as we believed, Anne Graham has at no time deviated from the truth so far as the red diary is concerned.
Peter Birchwood, pointedly states, in his posting to Paul Begg
on June 12 1999 that:
"investigating these nit-picking little questions (which is what Keith should have done by now) would tell us whether in 1995 Anne Graham lied or told the truth. Surely rather important?"
We wonder whether, now that Anne has been shown to be telling the truth, the little red diary will become significantly less important in Peter Birchwood's estimation?
Finally, we understand that Peter Birchwood has joined the ranks of those hoping to gain commercially from the Maybrick Diary, since we gather he is, himself, in the process of researching material for a book. This, allegedly, aims to debunk the diary and presumably discredit those involved with the project. Even if this is not the case, we feel that Peter's dictatorial demands and expectations make it extremely difficult to sustain a spirit of friendly co-operation. Our contributions to the board are, therefore, now terminated.
from Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner July 28th 1999 |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 12:29 pm | | Hi Steve Powell
I hope you don't mind but I am re-posting (copying) your post from the 'Missing Key' board to here, because some posters may not view the Missing Key board. This board might be a more appropriate place for your particular posting.
Dear Casebook Detectives,friends & Melvin....
What follows is an e-mail sent to Shirley Harrison by myself,
as part of our on-going 'assimulation' of my past memories of meeting Anne Graham in Australia in 1968/69.
Dear Shirley,
Sorry to get you in a boil but let me set you on the right path.
Vicki,she now refers to herself as Victoria,first contacted me after my exhausting efforts to find her.
We spoke for no longer than ten minutes and I indeed had to ask her two leading question and that was;did she remember 'a diary of jack the ripper and a nurse at the sutherland hospital whom I had met,who claimed she had it'?
The rest of the conversation was 'catching-up' talk and did not refer to the diary or surrounding events.
I was very aware at the time of speaking to her of the need to be careful that I did not influence her thoughts on this subject.
I have not spoken to her since that call from her last week and shall not do so again,until you have spoken at length to her yourself.
Please do record her statements but please show me a transcript of her words before they go public on the internet.
These are the facts as I know them concerning Victoria:
a)She met and became friends with Anne Graham.
b)She was aware of the JTR diary.
c)She was asked to contribute to the written material of the diary.
d)She told me that 'They' were serious about releasing this diary to the public.
e)She told me that in the Future if I remembered the diary and told of its writing and no-one believed me,that she would then,tell her story to back me up. (We shall see on this point,wont we)
Now,I still dont know if the diary is real or not,for all I know it may be as Anne said to me that;'My father has it....'or on the other hand it maybe a complete fabrication and she set out to write a 'Diary' based on her initial idea and enlisting as co-writers,her new found friends in australia.
Now listen very carefully on this next point:
Victoria and I had a friend at the time,who was obsessed with historical and modern crime.
I had known him from the age of fifteen and travelled australia with him for many years as performers.
When I went out on my own to record my music,he became very jealous of my success and his attitude to me was that I had left him in the lurch.
I met him again a few years later and had coffee with him at his mothers house in Cronulla,a short distance from the sutherland hospital.
He still had the shits with me and his contempt for me was obvious in his manner.I was trying to be an old friend and even asked him if he would like to come and record with me.He was in a foul mood and I was feeling like I should get up and just leave this arrogant bastard to his own morbid self.
As we were talking with his mother present he stated that he had been writting a book and that it would be published and that he would be famous before me (!?)
His mother piped-up and said to him; "IF YOU DONT GO TO JAIL FIRST FOR FORGERY!" This statement was interesting but this familly was into all sorts of things and I put it down to one of their idiotic quirks.
I asked him what the book was about and he said it was to the effect 'Historical'.
There followed a short discussion between his mum and himself to the effect that,He believed the 'book' to be true and his mother,laughingly
not.By this time I wanted to go and did so shortly after.
I have not seen this person since that time.
I give you his name,so that you can ask Victoria about him also.
She knew him very well.
His name is:
(available for casebook researchers by e-mail to steve powell only)
Born: Birkenheaad,Liverpool,England.
He would have been born in 1950,I'd say.
Interesting isn't it Shirley?
Another coincidence? or just another unbelievable story from steve powell....
You can believe what you must but all I have said is the TRUTH and I dont care now if anyone else believes it or not.
However,I respect your work Shirley and want you to know all of what I have heard and seen.
The Phone number of Victoria's is : (classified as you will understand)
Please keep me informed,so as we can work together on this.
bye for now Shirley.
Steve powell.
10/2/2001
ps
Why not find out what school Anne went to and see if one of her classmates, match names with this person in question?
speak soon.
steve powell |
Author: Stephen Butt
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 08:26 am | | From Stephen Butt to Keith Skinner.
Dear Keith,
My apologies for not responding earlier. I weish I had more time for this! I gather that Stewart Evans has been in touch with you regarding the Stead letters. But if you want anything further from me, please ask.
I am very interested in the letter from Lees' g-g-daughter. Would love to see it, please. Incidentally, my research into Lees has had the spin-off of enabling various members of the Lees clan (mostly great-grandchildren) to get in touch with each other for the first time. I've just helped one in Chicago to contact one in Australia, and neither knew of the other's existence. Doesn't help me much though!!
Best wishes,
Stephen. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 09:51 am | | Hi Stephen,
I'll gladly pass on your message to Keith, although Stewart may already have done so. Keith doesn't yet have access to the internet.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 09:58 am | | From Keith Skinner to Stephen Butt
Dear Stephen
Thank you very much for your response.
If you could kindly e-mail a contact address to either Stewart or Caroline, then I will happily post to you the material relating to Lees’s Great Granddaughter.
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: judyjanes
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 11:58 am | | | Hi Stephen Ryder, I love this site,I've been a follower of true crime ,especially JTR for Years. I've asked this question before but not rec'd an answer, or response, although the question was not directed to a particular person. Will the REAL James Maybrick say Cheese. In JTR, the Final Chapter written by Paul Feldman,Forward by Colin Wilson, there's a picture shown of James Maybrick, taken around 1887, and is compared to a composite drawing showing the startling resemblance between James & the suspect drawing. A great deal is made out of this indeed startling likeness by Colin Wilson, Donald Rumbelow and others, and I sure agree. But if you look in The Last Victim, by Anne Graham & Carol Emmas, forward by Keith Skinner, that exact same picture is shown but identified as Michael Maybrick. I think the picture is actually Michael, and if this is the case, then Michael certainly compares favourably with the suspect drawing. Maybe he was the ripper,maybe he wrote the diary blaming his brother, maybe he poisoned him, all for gain. Remember there were two versions of the will, Michael gained a great deal and yes he could have continued the murders for some years, in other countries as well, since he did travel due to his singing. I may be completely off base but it's an opinion. It's as good as if not better than Sickert. If anyone can verify the pictures for me I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks spaceyram |
Author: John Dow
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 05:01 am | | One of the (few) things that Maybrick-as-Ripper neatly ties up is the explanation of why the Ripper never struck again after Kelly.
If Michael was the ripper, why did he stop killing?
J |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 08:44 am | | Hi Judy,
I believe there was indeed a mix-up and a photo of Michael was incorrectly said to be of James.
Hi John,
If someone seriously wanted/needed to frame James for some reason, they couldn't hope to succeed if any later murders were ever confirmed as Jack's work.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 10:01 am | | Hi, John, Judy, and Caz:
Even James Maybrick does not make an ideal candidate for Jack in regard to the supposed end of the Ripper murders after the death of Mary Jane Kelly, for James lived for a full six months before his death on May 11, 1889. He only started to become ill, I believe, in April and May. Thus we are expected to believe that he went the months of December, January, February, and March, without a Ripper-style murder?
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 01:34 pm | | Hi Chris,
Don't forget that the only person who could expect anyone to believe this is whoever wrote the diary. And we don't even know for certain that this person was expecting us to read it and believe it. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: judyjanes
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 11:52 am | | Hi John Dow, Caroline Morris & Caz, Thanks for responding to my message, farfetched as it may seem
John, Since the heat was on after the Kelly murder
it is possible that (Michael, if he was the author) didn't continue killing in England. Since he was an accomplished singer, and travelled extensively, he may have continued his murdering elsewhere which satisfied his sexual,murderous frenzy, and took the heat off him at home.
Caroline,
So far, unless I am wrong, the greatest number of historians, authors , police and the general public agree that Kelly was the last actual ripper victim. There is still a great deal of contraversey with respect to Tabram being a victim or not as well as Stride. Coles on the other hand was then and is now very much connected with Sandler. I think it is a safe assumption that Kelly was indeed the last, but I do not profess to be an expert.
Caz
I think the diary was written by Michael Maybrick, if indeed it was written at all in the 1800's. It was possibly written as a back-up, for Michael, in the event that suspicion were to fall on Michael. I feel that Michael murdered his brother with poison, for financial gain, etc.,
But Michael was getting nervous, the cops had a drawing that resembled him in many ways, I think you would agree when comparing the photo of Michael to the drawing that was based on witness statements. If the police suspected Michael he would have the diary to back up a theory of suicide by James due to him being the ripper,etc. But he didn't have to present it thanks to the kangaroo court who sent an innocent woman to jail.
I apolize for being long winded. I'm probably way off base, but what a book I could build out of this theory. I won't of course, I'm not a writer, just a curious fan.
Thanks again for acknowleging me.
judy (aka spaceyram) |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 12:03 pm | | Caz,
Whoever wrote the diary intended this to be read. Its not a confession, its a story.
The fact is that we did read it and some of us believe it.
It holds nothing new. No revalations regarding the murder that couldnt have been picked up in any other book.
Monty
PS Sorry, post is short...so is my time. |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 12:25 pm | | Whoah Monty,
Just wait 'til the "Ruud" boy gets his hands on you !!
Jim |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 12:30 pm | | Hi, Judy:
One problem with your scenario of Michael writing the Diary to make people think his brother James was Jack the Ripper, presuming as you theorise that Michael was the Ripper, is that a probable mistake in the Diary is that the writer, who is supposedly James Maybrick, mistakenly thinks that Michael Maybrick is a lyricist and poet. He was not -- he wrote songs, but he was a composer who needed a lyricist to provide the words. You can be sure that if Michael, with his big ego, composed the Diary, he would want the world to know he composed music. Another point is that if you are the killer and you make your brother the Ripper it is a bit too close to comfort. Why point the finger at someone in your own family, when that finger could end up being pointed at you?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 01:21 pm | | So there's a "Caz" and a "Caroline Morris"
Now I understand! |
Author: judyjanes
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 04:55 pm | | Christopher George,
I respect your view point on Michael, but please answer this question, In Jack the ripper, the final chapter by Paul Feldmann, do you not agree that the picture presented as James Maybrick, which was actually Michael Maybrick, had an uncanny resemblance to the eye witness description of JTR? Comments were made by Colin Wilson, Donald Rumbelow etc of this similarity and I couldn't agree more. Michael was no doubt egotistical, however he may have been vain enough to assume that no one would assume that he could possibly be the ripper considering his "Star Status". If the Diary is legit then why is it taking so long for the experts to acknowledge
same? I am starting to think the diary is a fake as far as James is concerned. After reading Jack the Ripper by Mark Daniel I am totally confused anyway. If indeed one of the senarios is correct than Maybrick doesn't enter in at all. Thanks for the response. spaceyram |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 01:32 am | | Hi, Judy:
I believe I would caution you not to put too much store in the artist's impression of a man sighted, who may or may not have been the killer, even if the sketch appears, on the surface, to resemble Michael or James Maybrick. Artist's impressions can be misleading. Also, a lot of men were seen with the women before they were killed and it is not certain which one, if any, was the murderer.
The particular sketch to which you refer and that was published in the Diary books is one of two newspaper sketches of the supposed murderer based on the testimony of Matthew Packer, the fruiterer who lived at 44 Berner Street. Packer claimed that he sold grapes to a man with Elizabeth Stride prior to her murder in the early hours of September 30. The sketch the Diary books show is of a man with a mustache. There is another sketch of the same man wearing a different, trilby or derby style hat, and without a mustache-- a man who looks less like either of the Maybricks. This, to some extent, then, is a case of the pro-Diarists choosing a sketch to show readers that looked more like Maybrick instead of being more objective and showing both sketches. The two sketches, which appeared in the Daily Telegraph of October 6, are reproduced in Evans and Skinner's The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion in the illustrations section following p. 340.
Note that there are questions about Packer's testimony with some suspicion that he was a publicity seeker. He spoke extensively to the newspapers, and possibly embroidered on his tale in seeking his "15 minutes of fame." Note too that the witnesses whom most students of the case think more probably saw the Ripper would be Israel Schwartz (if Stride was murdered by the Ripper) and Joseph Lawende, in the case of the Eddowes murder, not Matthew Packer. Schwartz is said to have seen a man with a black cap with a peak (The Ultimate, p. 123), not the round crowned felt hat with a brim shown in the sketch.
Additionally, Packer's description was of "a young man age 25 to 30. . . [with a] rough voice" which does not seem to fit either of the Maybrick brothers, who were older men and would undoubtedly have spoken in a more gentlemanly fashion not with a "rough voice." Chief Inspector Donald Swanson in his notes on the Stride investigation noted, "Packer who is an elderly man, has unfortunately made different statements so that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman (and she was seen afterwards by the P.C. & Schwartz as stated) any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence." (The Ultimate, p. 125).
Judy, I hope the above information gives you a better understanding on whether to put credence in the sketch shown in the Diary books that the pro-Diarists claim looks like Maybrick.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 03:56 am | | Hi Chris,
'You can be sure that if Michael...composed the Diary, he would want the world to know he composed music.'
As he was the Elton John of his day, I doubt he would have thought 'the world' needed telling.
And I still maintain there is nothing in the diary that shows conclusively that its author was unaware of the fact that Michael was most successful at, and made his living from, writing 'a merry tune'. Why couldn't he have been more successful than his brother James when privately coming up with funny little rhymes - which, after all, is what 'James' was trying to do in his diary? He wasn't interested in composing tunes, was he? And all children try their hand at poetry a some time or another, don't they? My daughter is more 'successful' at it than I ever was, and composing tunes, but we won't go into that....
Hi Judy,
I'm afraid 'Caz' is me - Caroline Morris, although I think Scotty has a point! Reticence and shyness is to 'Caz' what public speaking would be to Caroline Morris. Work it out. 
Love,
Caz and Caroline |
Author: judyjanes
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 10:40 am | | Chris George,
You set me straight for sure. I totally agree with you. I am absolutely not pro diary I am a diary doubter. I just last year got my personal computer and obviously missed a great deal by not having access to Casebook, and the very well informed fans, authors, etc., I've reread all my books and just recently got my hands on A-Z by Begg,Fido & Skinner. I had to send to the UK to get it. Here in Canada we unfortunately are at a disadvantage when it comes to availabilety of JTR books. So I apologize for being a pain by obviously bringing up old items that have probably been put to rest. I have been a hugh true crime buff for years with Jack being my favourite. One thing that I am trying to figure out is Druit. Why was he suspected in the first place? Was it only due to his suicide? And doesn't James Kelly seem like quite a mystery,his story really intrigues me.Thanks for your patience.
spaceyram |
Author: judyjanes
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 10:48 am | | Caroline aka Caz,
I feel like a ninny. I have not sent very many messages and am therefore not up to speed on the names and nick names of the Casebook regulars.
My apologies, Caz, thanks for the feedback. I
myself go by the name spaceyram quite frequently.
do you prefer Caz? I think it's cute.
spaceyram |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 11:28 am | | Jim,
I fear not the Wood.
He is old and antiquated and, more importantly, not here til next week !!!
Dont worry though, he mails me at work....I have noooooo rest from him.....no sanctuary !!
Monty
|
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 11:37 am | | Hi, Monty:
Isn't that Ruud of Peter to e-mail you at work, ho ho. Will be nice to see him back. Please give him my best.
Chris |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 11:45 am | | Chris,
He wasnt impressed by that Cornwell doc.
All he went on about was "No mention of Maybrick" !!????
What did you expect Ruudi ??
Believe me, he is itchin to get back and when he does
BOOM
Monty
|
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 11:50 am | | Hi, Judy:
I am glad the information on the supposed suspect sketch that I gave you proved useful. I have to say that until I posted the message and looked into the exact origin of the sketch that the pro-Maybrick camp were using I did not realize that it is based on Packer's questionable testimony, nor that there were two sketches of the same man. I think you can well see though how, intentionally or not, writers who favor a particular suspect can take a piece of "evidence" and use it out of context for their own ends.
In regard to Montague John Druitt, I think it is almost uniformly acknowledged among students of the Ripper case that we don't know exactly why he was suspected. It seems to do with the family information that Macnaghten refers to. Unfortunately we are not privy to what the family told the police. Stephen Ryder came across a very intriguing letter at Duke University some months back which mentioned a lady who had fears that a relative could be the murderer and who was being introduced to Sir Robert Anderson by a third party. Stephen theorizes that the person could have been Emily Druitt, Montague's cousin, due to the parties involved in the correspondence.
The following messages from Robeer to Martin Fido may also prove helpful--
"Do you get the feeling Macnaghten received information on Druitt from two sources at different times? The first source was Druitt's family, most probably his older brother William who found evidence among his brother's possessions. Later his cousin or sister may have contacted the Met. Then a much later source, this time from a friend. . . . From what I've read William, Lionel, and Emily Druitt were all candidates for communication with the Met. All three would appear to have some knowledge of the family secret."
All the best
Chris George |
Author: jennifer pegg
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 02:51 pm | | hi
can i just ask. i know that people dissmiss this date of 1920ish for the diary but why? is it scientific objection. was m. maybrick alive then?
jennifer |
|
|
|
|
