|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 18, 1998
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Admissable as evidence or not:
Archive through November 18, 1998
Author: Stephanie Loyd
Friday, 13 November 1998 - 09:56 pm |        | Alright,
I know I'm asking for trouble, but I've never been shy and I would like to cut right to the chase of this. My contention has always been that the diary is of no interest until it had a proven pedigree. There was a lot of back and forth over burden of proof in a court of law.
It occurred to me that while, with a court case, it wasn't apparently parallel enough to prove a point, there was a pertinent legal parallel. So, here's my question:
If Maybrick were to be tried posthumously, would the diary be admissable as evidence in a court of law (any country will do)?
Here is how I see it:
(a) it materialized 100 years after the fact with no traceability. It was not found in any of Maybrick's property and no line going back to Maybrick has been determined.
(b) the handwriting has not only not been positively identified as Maybrick's but has, by at least one expert, been determined as NOT Maybrick's. (Sorry about all the negatives, but I couldn't think of a cleaner way to state it)
(c) there was at least one material reason for it to have shown up at the time Maybrick died (as a defense for his accused wife)
(d) dating the ink has not shown it is undoubtedly of that age and the book, although shown to be at least 60 years old, has not been shown conclusively to be any older.
If you have arguments for why it should be admissible as evidence, please pass them along. Ditto to the contrary. You need data and or proof, and what is inside the diary will not, to the best of my knowledge, be useful since we can't use it until it's been admitted, or rather, it can only be used to disprove the diary (like throwing in a reference to McDonald's golden arches).
What I'm looking for is an outside trace, some verifiable link between Maybrick and the diary, even some terciary source that can demonstrate a link between Maybrick to the crimes described.
Note, I said demonstrate--using data--not speculation.
Stephanie "feeling very judgelike" Loyd |
Author: Sean Miller
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:19 pm | | Steph's Letter...
-------------------------------------------------
Here is how I see it:
(a) it materialized 100 years after the fact with no traceability. It was not found in any of Maybrick's property and no line going back to Maybrick has been determined.
%(b) the handwriting has not only not been positively identified as Maybrick's but has, by at least one expert, been determined as NOT Maybrick's. (Sorry about all the negatives, but I couldn't think of a cleaner way to state it)
(c) there was at least one material reason for it to have shown up at the time Maybrick died (as a defense for his accused wife)
(d) dating the ink has not shown it is undoubtedly of that age and the book, although shown to be at least 60 years old, has not been shown conclusively to be any older.
If you have arguments for why it should be admissible as evidence, please pass them along. Ditto to the contrary. You need data and or proof, and what is inside the diary will not, to the best of my knowledge, be useful since we can't use it until it's been admitted, or rather, it can only be used to disprove the diary (like throwing in a reference to McDonald's golden arches).
What I'm looking for is an outside trace, some verifiable link between Maybrick and the diary, even some terciary source that can demonstrate a link between Maybrick to the crimes described.
Note, I said demonstrate--using data--not speculation.
Stephanie "feeling very judgelike" Loyd
--------------------------------------------------
Stephanie,
Seems to be your buzzword "data not speculation"
Who, precisely, in the Maybrick household would have used such a diary to defend Florrie??? She didn't have that many allies, did she! I mean she was committed to trial, when any of the Maybrick family COULD have testified that James was a hopeless Arsenic addict.
But they didn't... so I don't think the fact the diary wasn't used to aid Florrie's case really has any significance... do you (really) ??
Another point.. I've been talking to you on the "old" board. And you've kept on about how this diary has been written in the last quarter of a century. Why now, "at least 60 years old" ??!
I now feel you to by on my side, Steph! Welcome aboard! 60 years ago (1938?) there would still have been some police from the 1888 period (let's say they were 20 at the time.. that makes them 70??? Perfectly able to write the diary!) who could have written the diary!
Perhaps we'll get the "know alls" yet! The evidence is obviously in our favour!!
Sean
(see the original board for the history to this reply - cor, I am so please that Steph has finally seen the light! (bliss!)) |
Author: Stephanie Loyd
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:53 pm | | Mr. Miller,
To answer your question about the defense of Florrie, it should be noted that my question has to do with the tracing back to Maybrick. My answer is: Florrie. As his wife, it would not be illogical to assume she would have been one of those most likely to stumble upon his diary after the fact. In addition, as it was a murder trial, there would have been any number of legally minded people pawing through Maybrick's things. In all likelihood, I would have expected the diary, if genuine, to have been found there on his property, at best, hidden somewhere in his house.
Before the question comes up on why I think that and why I didn't think he hid it elsewhere, the answer is two-fold:
(1) unless he knew really well when he was going to die, it is unlikely he'd leave it outside of a place he had direct access to if only because if an outsider found it, he would be dragged in by police.
(2) this is not something you just hand to an outsider, however trustworthy, for safekeeping. I have heard some speculation that it was passed to Maybrick's lover. Although the concept of a serial killer who worked with his lover as an accomplice has precedence, it is not common enough for me to use as a link unless there is some outside data that makes it plausible. Without that, I would be loath to accept that Maybrick gave a book, where he detailed the most sensational killings (of "loose women" by the way) in England at the time, to a woman with which he had been sleeping.
While it is possible that he did hide it elsewhere when he was still in a state of health to move about or that he did give it to his lover, it does not appear plausible and, without objective data to give these possibilities credence, I won't.
Basically, the answer is: yes, I do think that the fact that this book was not produced in Florrie's defense is significant when trying to establish whether or not Maybrick wrote it.
As for your other point: name one time I said the diary was written in the last quarter century. I personally believe it is modern if only because that is the simplest answer and fits all the data I've noted to date best. To be perfectly honest, it is of NO interest to me if it were an old or modern forgery. At this point, I plan to stick on determining whether or not there is justification in thinking Maybrick wrote it.
I am unclear as to why you put me "by your side". I only state the data available to date (I prefer to work with data and logic). However, for the record, while the age of the book itself does not preclude the possibility of it being an old forgery, I do not hold it conclusive on its own since the ink itself has not been conclusively dated.
Stephanie "always having been illuminated" Loyd |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 15 November 1998 - 01:35 am | | It is highly unlikely that Florence Maybrick's defence would have produced the "Diary" at her trial. Florence Maybrick pleaded *innocent* and producing the "Diary" would have done no more than provide her with a motive - maybe a justifiable motive, but a motive nevertheless, which wouldn't have done her plea of innocence any good at all. (A similar situation happened in the 1950s in the trial of Ruth Ellis, the last woman hanged in Britain, when her defence withheld from the Court evidence that the man she'd killed had recently punched her so violently that she had suffered a miscarriage as a result. This information was thought to show premeditation)
Stephanie wrote, "My contention has always been that the diary is of no interest until it had a proven pedigree". On this question of provenance, it has been recognised since the outset that provenance is as bad as bad can be and it is absolutely legitimate to give no further consideration to the "Diary" until provenance is established. Unfortunately, provenance will only be established through research and in the main research will only be conducted by those who have a vested interest in the document, either a desire to prove it genuine or to prove it a forgery. Thus, *not* considering the "Diary" until provenance is established doesn't actually get us very far. |
Author: Sean Miller
Sunday, 15 November 1998 - 08:27 am | | Stephanie,
The last couple of paragraphs of my message weren't really supposed to be taken too seriously - a little bit of sarcasm to help the banter along!
I think, however, we have a lot in common in terms of our viewpoints. I don't believe that Maybrick wrote the diary - I think you're quite correct in your view that somebody would have found it before now - interesting to note, as well, that the diary ends with a nice "..and that was that" ending. Does the evidence suggest that Maybrick was that much in control in the final days to write an epitaph to his "Jack the Ripper" days, and then (presumably) hide the diary! No, I don't think it does.
But this is why I would like to establish what actually did occur, and why I still don't "buy" the idea of the diary being written in the last ten years, and is also why I don't particularly "buy" the argument that a pub called the "Poste House" existing or not (in Liverpool) actually holds the key.
There is a danger that by accepting evidence as "conclusive" one shuts off the debating process, one "closes the book" and consequently loses the opportunity to find the actual truth.
Sean
ps. I rather like Paul's message to Genevieve a couple of weeks ago. In it he stated that he didn't actually care who was Jack the Ripper if this prevented further knowledge being gained. I think this is true, and I don't have a suspect to put forward - what I would like, though, is for when the diary is proved to be a fraud that it is proved conclusively, not just "the likelihood is..". |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 15 November 1998 - 08:01 pm | | Sean -
I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying. My dislike of the Diary is known by anyone familiar with me, and one of the reasons I have found it so difficult to accept is because it is so perfect in its own way. The point was once made by another poster on this board, but the Diary is almost tailor-made to a Ripperologist's requests: it provides motive, shows where the killer had his hideout, solves the problems of the Ripper letters, explains the ferocity of the carnage visited upon Mary Jane Kelly, provides enough clues to identify the murderer (and explain why the murders stopped) and ends with a tearful coda and plea for forgiveness. It is practically a novel or film script as it stands. It's a believeable dramatic solution, but it's not a believeable human one.
And I will admit that despite my distate for the thing, I am curious as to the process. Who decided to create the forgery? What research did they use? What was the purpose (cui bono)? And so I do agree with you and Paul that research should continue, because it is a fake. Once we find out who and why and when, it will be that much easier to put a stake through the heart of the whole suppurating mess and have done with it. Or at least, I would like to think that - we're over 20 years past Steven Knight, and people still think that's the truth, so I hold no illusions as to this being settled anytime soon.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Stephanie Loyd
Sunday, 15 November 1998 - 09:23 pm | | Mr. Begg, Mr. Miller, and Cristopher-Michael (et. al)
I recognize that you and others are still very interested in the Diary if it is a forgery, particularly if anyone can come up with any significant data on indicating it is old.
However, I had hoped when I started this "conversation topic," to focus on whether or not the diary could be justifiably linked with Maybrick. There is nothing invalid in your interests and intended research, it just holds no interest for me personally (and I don't think I'm alone, either). For me, if it is a forgery, it is a doorstop.
The reason I would rather not stray, as we are doing now, is because many a newcomer to the boards asks, "What makes you think this isn't Maybrick's?" and I think it would be nice to point them to a conversation where the pros and cons are discussed on that subject, and that alone. From that, then, if they are still interested in more, they can check out all the other conversations for discussions on the studies and possibilities of old vs. new forgery discussions.
I am not pooh-poohing those interests, just think that this new format for the bulletin board lends itself to specialized topics, so that people don't have to read through messages they aren't interested in to get to what does interest them.
It's not a mandate, just a request.
Stephanie "rain on one's parade" Loyd |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 16 November 1998 - 04:13 am | | | Stephanie, I agree with you! - and now that you've picked yourself from the floor, what you were hoping to achieve was exactly the same as I'd hoped for when I asked the Parishoners for ten reasons why the "Diary" is a forgery and then played Devil's Advocate. I had hoped that we'd be able to establish a few good reasons, agreed by the majority of the assembled company, which could then be researched or discussed. Maybe you can forge ahead where I failed. |
Author: D Cairns
Monday, 16 November 1998 - 10:16 am | | 10 reasons.
1 The Handwriting.
2. The Handwriting.
3. The handwriting.
4. The handwriting.
5. The handwriting.
6. The handwriting.
7. The handwriting.
8. The handwriting.
9 The handwriting.
10. The handwriting.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. |
Author: Sean Miller
Monday, 16 November 1998 - 01:00 pm | | Stephanie (and Paul... (disappointingly, by the looks of things)),
I think you're forgetting what this board is about. It is about the diary, NOT about James Maybrick.
If he diary was written, then it was written by somebody (though most of us agree, not Maybrick!)
However, that somebody could still have something to contribute to the "Ripper" discussion. It could have been a policeman, and he may have something to impart that is not yet common knowledge.
...if we were take the argument to its logical conclusion then he might have been "Jack", and might have chosen a high-profile murder case to mask the evidence.
Sean
ps. Alternatively, rename this board "The James Maybrick Debate" and forget entirely about the diary, because from the last two messages it doesn't seem Mr Begg or Stephanie want a board called "The Diary of Jack the Ripper", as Paul seems to have given Stephanie in her "Let's debate Maybrick" the thumbs up. |
Author: Chris George
Monday, 16 November 1998 - 01:41 pm | | I wrote earlier:
Well, Sean, what facts are you presenting to prove your theory that the diary might be a police hoax? All you have is sheer speculation...
Sean Miller replied:
Chris,
Thanks for your reply, and you make some convincing arguments. I will admit that all I have is sheer speculation. However, I have read many many books on the subject, and I am still to be
convinced that the argument "It is either by Jack, or is a modern hoax" holds up. I am writing to tbe board BECAUSE I have yet to be convinced, and your message is the sort of message that may well convince me (in which case, I believe it will have been worth contributing my thoughts! ..selfish? Perhaps!)
Again, I wrote in regard to the rhymes in the diary:
Peter in his reply to you mentioned the style of the "poetry" that appears in the diary. I have mentioned this before in this forum, that the rhymes are not written the way a person of that age would have written them, but here again I present the argument:
A Victorian poet and indeed even British poets into the late 20th century have habitually capitalized the opening letter of the first word of every line. Even Ted Hughes, the British Poet
Laureate who has just died, capitalized the opening letter of each line, as in "Fulbright Scholars," the first poem in his 1998 collection "Birthday Letters," which begins:
"Where was it, in the Strand? A display
Of news items, in photographs.
For some reason I notice it.
A picture of that year's intake
Of Fulbright Scholars. Just arriving--
Or arrived. Or some of them......"
The noncapitalization of lines in poetry is an American convention introduced in the late twentieth century, so the style of the diary is not consistent with Victorian poetical practice,
nor even with most British poetical practice in this century. So we have the diarist saying (p. 267 of Hyperion 1st American edition of "The Diary of Jack the Ripper"):
"tis love that spurned me so
tis love that does destroy
tis love that I yearn for
tis love that she spurned
tis love that will finish me
tis love that I regret"
This is not even punctuated let alone use the capitalized first letter that would be conventional for a writer of 1888/1889.
Sean responded:
...stop there! You have taken a single rhyme from the diary and used it to prove something. I think Ted Hughes would rather like to think that he was something more than a serial killer writing
a bit of amateur poetry. I could point you at many snippets of poetry in the diary that DOES conform to your "standard".
Dear Mr Abbeline, I am a lucky man
Next time I will do all that I can
With a little cut here and a little cut there
I will go laughing away to my lair.
One ring, two rings
A farthing one and two
Sir Jim will do true
Letter M its true
Along with M ha ha
Will catch clever Jim...
Remember, the lines you refer to are LATE on in the diary. The author is trying to imply increasing madness. Perhaps failing to stick to poetic standards is part of this ??!!?!
I stated:
Sean, everything points to the diary being produced recently.
And he responded:
Chris, SOME things do. But I think you are accepting such things far too easily! In one of the pubs I frequent in Somerset, there is a conveyance from the eighteenth or nineteenth century. The handwriting there certainly is not dissimilar to the handwriting in "Jack"'s diary!
Convince me, Sir.. but trying to imply that the diary writer was an accomplished poet (and therefore conformed to rules) won't!
Compare it to AMATEUR poetry man, not the poet Laureate!!
Sean
*************************************************
Okay, Sean, I admit that the noncapitalization of the opening words of the little rhymes or jingles that the writer presents us with is not consistent throughout the work. However, there is enough noncapitalization of the opening letters for me to form the conclusion that the writer is a later twentieth century individual writing according to American conventions introduced in the second half of the twentieth century. In fact the opening pages contain a few words set off just the same way that the poems are later in the document, and these contain either no capitalization or inconsistent capitalization--
"two farthings
two pills
the whores M
rings....
One ring, two rings,
a farthing one and two
Along with M ha ha
Will catch clever Jim
its true
No pill left but two"
If this writer purports to be Maybrick or is a writer of the same time as Maybrick as you contend, they would not have to have been a professional poet to write in the convention of the age. This was a time period in which people were always writing poems and other salutations in each other's albums. I would be prepared to bet that James Maybrick or the policemen working on the case wrote in the personal albums of his children or in those of other relatives, and the doggerel or other poetry that they wrote would have had the opening capital letter of the age.
Chris George |
Author: Stephanie Loyd
Monday, 16 November 1998 - 08:01 pm | | Mr. Miller,
I will try to explain again. I am not telling you not to debate your ideas of the possible origins of an forged diary from way back. I'm just suggesting that you start another conversation so that people can go to the conversation most likely to suit their interests, instead of meandering around on twenty different subjects under the heading of one "conversation".
Would it make it easier if I started another for you?
Stephanie "always helpful" Loyd |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 17 November 1998 - 12:24 am | | Sean - I am not dismissing the possibility that the "Diary" is an old forgery, merely agreeing with Stephanie that it would be a good idea to establish good reasons why the "Diary" isn't genuine. It might be an equally good idea to show ten good reasons why it could be an old forgery and ten good reasons why it is a modern forgery.
My point about this is perhaps illustrated by my recent post to Dave Cairns who cited the handwriting as the strongest reason against the authenticity of the "Diary". I happen to agree with Dave on this point, but neverthless I have cited reasons why I think handwriting analysis is open to question. I don't know how valid those reasons are (I am merely quoting from another book) and I would welcome and value the expert opinions of questioned document examiners (if any could be drawn to this site) who might resolve or even highlight the problems. My point is: let's discuss, but discuss sensibly and let's recognise that we don't all have first-hand expertise, so there's no point in getting hot under the collar.
So, yes, discuss the old forgery idea with gusto. One thing, though, assuming that a policeman wrote the "Diary", what do you think he intended to do with it to make him famous? It isn't a novel, so it seems reasonable to assume that whoever wrote it was going to pass it off as James Maybrick's. If so, presumably our theoretical copper was either going to claim he'd discovered it and thus receive the kudos of solving the Ripper mystery, or he planned to do exactly what has been done (if you see what I mean). |
Author: Lisby
Tuesday, 17 November 1998 - 11:05 am | | First of all, I am new here and have no idea of the ins and outs the Maybrick debate held on this list. In short, I am a pathetic weakling and don't flame me!
Okay, now that that is out of the way....
I have question. I read the supposed diary some years ago and in it, if I am remembering correctly, "Maybrick" mentioned writing the initials "FM" on of the wall of Mary Kelly's room in her blood. Sure enough, in the crime scene pictures, there is what looks like an "FM" on the wall. In all the material I have read on the ripper case, I have never seen a single mention of those initals on Mary Kelly's wall, yet they appear to be there.
I'm sorry if this was beaten to death years ago on this list, but *were* there initials on the wall? Were they ever made note of at the time by investigators? I have no formed opinion either way on the Maybrick diary, I am merely neutral and curious about this aspect of the case for it being a genuine diary.
Thank you in advance for your information and opinions.
Lisby |
Author: Chris George
Tuesday, 17 November 1998 - 11:52 am | | Welcome to the discussion, Lisby. For your information, the first time the supposed "FM" on the wall in Mary Jane Kelly's room was mentioned in print is in Shirley Harrison's "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" (1993), which you have evidently read. No one previously had noticed it in the photograph of the crime scene, and there is no notation of any letters on the wall of the murder room at 13 Miller's Court known to have been made by the police officials or the doctors who visited the scene of death. The consensus of most people on this site, I think, is that the so-called Diary is a forgery and that the apparent "FM" did not exist. What is seen in the photograph may be a blood splash or a defect in the wall. Whatever it is, James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper, and the "FM" if that is what it is, is not the initials of his wife Florence Maybrick as the composer of the Diary would have us believe.
Chris George |
Author: Sean Miller
Tuesday, 17 November 1998 - 12:57 pm | | Lisby,
One has to bear in mind when considering the "FM" on the wall of Mary Kelly's room the fact that it only appears when that one particular photograph is heavily magnitised and computer-enhanced. Even then the "F" seems to me to be extremely difficult to make out.
Rather like the anagram theory with respect to J.K.Stephen and our old friend Druitt (allegedly JKS scrawled "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" in order to send the message "Now Hate M.J.Druitt, He sent the Woman to Hell")...makes a good story, and livens up the theory, but doesn't actually seem to have any great purpose, OR fit into the pattern of the murders.
Think the main reason authors have otherwise ignored the "FM" is that it was never there to realistically consider.
Sean |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 17 November 1998 - 02:31 pm | | IMHO, and tongue firmly in cheek, the letters FM on Mary Kelly's wall are as real as the figure of death carrying a scythe I can see in the stain on the Saucy Jack card, and the appearance of the Madonna on a rust stain on the top of a paint can in my garage.
Edana (Op art) Ripperphile |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 17 November 1998 - 02:47 pm | | | Just as a further nail in the coffin of the "initials" on Kelly's wall, consider if you will the example of the claims about so-called "backwards masking" of Satanic messages in rock recordings a few years back. If somebody tells you IN ADVANCE that you will hear Robert Plant sing "Praise to my sweet Satan", and then plays you a Led Zeppelin track backwards, your brain will do its darnedest to construct those words from the sounds you hear. Doesn't mean they were ever "placed" there deliberately, though, does it? |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 08:31 am | | 13/11/98
:18/11/98
I put this on the old BB but maybe no-one saw it. If they did and this is redundant, please forgive! Peter.
Sean:
:
Why is the diary not an old forgery. OK, lets have a go and
please remember that these are my own thoughts. Firstly though, a
few words. Others know much more about the forensics than I do.
Also, my contention is that the diary was forged sometime around
1991-92. Seven years later this does of course make it an old
forgery but that's not what we mean. An old forgery probably
means 1889-1905: the trial and release of Florrie.
:
1/ Firstly, read the diary. I don't believe that the content
reads as though it was composed at this time. If you want to
compare it to anything at all it would be to a pastiche Sherlock
Holmes story written now. This is my opinion. I'd be interested
indeed if anyone can suggest a late Victorian story that reads
like the diary.
Peter, whilst I agree you can't find many victorian stories that
read like the diary, one must admit that the diary is not
SUPPOSED to be a story - it is supposed to be a catalogue of the
rapid deterioration of a man's mental health...
SEAN: Can you find any Victorian stories that read like the diary?
And it is not "supposed to be a catalogue..." etc. Nobody of the time would have written anything like this pre modern psychiatry. It's not written factually: it's written in the style that is familiar to readers of modern horror fiction. If you truly believe that this could have been written by a police officer such as Abberline just compare it to other works penned by contemporary officers. Martin Fido who knows a bit more about literature than me says it's not of the period. Now if you know better, give us reasons.
:
2/ Why, logically would the diary have been written? To get
Florrie a new trial? But she had actually been reprieved. If the
diary had been produced at this time the only effect would have
been to have given Florrie an excuse for killing her husband. The
information that Maybrick was JtR would have nothing to do with
Florrie's trial for poisoning him. Was the diary produced during
Florrie's prison time and was she released because of it? No.
She served 15 years (not an unusual length then for her crime)
and seems to have been released because of continuing pressure
from her family and the US Government. Had the diary been
produced at this time, information would have leaked out and yet
it is fact that until 1992 Maybrick and JtR had never been
linked. Was the diary written as fiction at this time or later?
Well maybe, but see my previous sentence. It does not read like a
story. It reads like what it is: an attempt to forge an
historical document.
;
I probably agree with you. Why was the diary produced?? However,
I think that one has to consider the scenario in the late
nineteenth century. We have a situation where a number of
extremely inexplicable murders occur. At the same time we have a
murder case where a woman is convicted for poisaning a man who is
allegedly being taken over by arsenic poisening day by day.
An excellent case for a policeman in the Met (or the City police)
to exploit as fodder for their "diary".
Come on! You don't seriously belive, do you, that this is an
attempt to clear Florrie! How could it be!! What this is is an
ambitious member of the police force in the late nineteenth
century trying to write something to make him famous!!
..it is SO obvious! Why do you continue to ignore the
indisputable facts!!??!?!
OK, LETS take this bit by bit. Firstly the ripper murders and the Maybrick killing were never linked. Florrie was tried several months after the Kelly murder. If you've got any evidence other than a "I say it so it must be true" feeling please present it. If anyone in the City Met. or Liverpool (you should include them) forces wanted to become famous by writing this diary why not publish it? Plenty of "ripper" police actually did write them memoirs and none of them gave any thought to the late Mr. Maybrick. And if you're suggesting that the author died before he could publish, name him and let's investigate the possibility. You should also consider the wise words of Terry Pratchett concerning multiple exclamation marks.
:
3/ The content of the diary. Is there anything there which could
date it? Well, it's been said that thelist of Eddowes' property
is so similar to the Police list that the author must have seen
it or a reprinting of it. Now Feldman for a change makes an
excellent point on this. The police list says: "1 tim match box
empty." The diarist says: "...damn it, the tin box was empty."
Feldman says (p.61 pb edn.) "The seven words that our diarist
wrote meant that the diary either had to be a modern forgery
or...words written by the perpetrator of the Whitechapel
murders." Now most of us have agreed that the diary is not
written by JtR. It is therefore not an old forgery but modern
:
AHAHA! Well, here is the problem, isn't it! You are still
clinging to this grave misconception! "the author must have seen
it" (the list of Eddowes property). SO!!! Who wrote "1 tin match
box empty" ... is it actually dawning on you yet, as nobody seems
to be seeing the evidence staring them in the face!! Perhaps
not... SOMEBODY WROTE THIS "1 TIN MATCH BOX"! And this somebody
was not the Inspector, it was certainly not McNaughton! It was
not ANY of the senior officers! .. it was the AUTHOR of the diary!
SO who is the author of the diary? Which Inspector: there were several of them. McNaughton wasn't in the force when Eddowes property list was drawn up. So you think it was a Sgt. or PC? You've got a lot to choose from unless of course the diarist was your great-grandfather and you can prove it. I'm beginning to think that I have seen your literary style somewhere before.
God! How can YOU ALL be so naive!! Wake up, and stop writing
books which all express the same message!
WERE you in Liverpool in 1992?
"Feldman says (p.61 pb edn.) "The seven words that our diarist
wrote meant that the diary either had to be a modern forgery
or...words written by the perpetrator of the Whitechapel
murders." Now most of us have agreed that the diary is not
written by JtR. It is therefore not an old forgery but modern.."
Sorry... not an argument at all! It's like turning round and
telling somebody that the street they live in could not have
existed one hundred years ago, when their house is three hundred
years old! DON'T REPEAT THE OLD MISCONCEPTIONS! OPEN YOUR MIND
AND ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING!!!!
You've edited my comments somewhat but I forgive you. The point is that Feldmans words are like those spoken by Harry Price at different times regarding the Borley ghost. They remove one possibility (the old forgery) and leave the other two. The statement is logically consistent unlike yours You've mentioned that you haven't done independent research but have read "all" the books. Well that's fine: read the books and make up your mind. Criticise the authors they can all make mistakes but don't howl in Caps. about old misconceptions and learning something, presumably from you. This case is primarily about evidence. The reason that I criticise Feldman and Shirley Harrison is because of faulty evidence, misconceptions and relying too much on the unproven words of particular persons.
:
To keep this to a moderate length I've omitted some points:
handwriting, use of language/poetry etc. If anyone wants to
compare Victorian handwriting to the diarists I can fax them
samples of the Titchbourne Claimants'. For the forensics read
Melvin's posts.
:
Perhaps here you actually make a point! This actually might swing
it! ...then again...??!?
THANKS.
Regards, Peter "It's nearly dinnertime and I've got a backache"
Birchwood.
Hope it got better! But please consider my points.. it is obvious
if you really think about it!
IT did. I've considered your points but suggest that you need to provide us with more evidence if we are to take this at all seriously.
Regards Peter. |
Author: Lisby
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 08:59 am | | So, there is no contemporary mention of the "FM" that anyone is aware of? Okay. That being the case, I can agree with the "Led Zeppelin" theory of why it looks like it's there. It could easily be a random blood splash or wall defect.
Thanks for the information. It's something I've been curious about ever since I saw it in the book. I'm enjoying reading your debate. I'll chime in when I have something educated to say or another question to ask!
Take care,
Lisby |
|
|
|
|
