|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 August 9, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Admissable as evidence or not:
Archive through August 9, 1999
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 11:24 am |        | | The FM had been noted as early as 1988 by Ripper researcher Simon Wood and was known to a number of people, among them myself, but I am not sure if it was published or how widely it was known if it was. When enlarged the "M" looks to me like a blood splash. That no writing of any sort is mentioned in the extant reports is not any strong evidence of the initials not having been there because hardly any case papers relating to the Kelly case have survived. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 11:42 am | | Peter - forgive me, but the question you set out to answer was "Why is the diary not an old forgery?" Broadly speaking you then said it was not an old forgery because
(a) it doesn't read like a genuine Victorian document.
(b) because you can see no purpose for the forgery in respect to effecting Florence Maybrick in any way.
(c) the content, in particular the empty tin matchbox suggesting that the document had to have been written by somebody who had seen Eddowes inquest papers.
With respect, the first two don't show that the "Diary" is not an old forgery, only that it may not have been written in the late Victorian period. They don't, for example, show that the "Diary" could not have been written in the 1930s. As for the third, I think I might be right in saying that in the 1930s Eddowes' inquest papers would have been available to public inspection.
Evidence indicating that the "Diary" can't be an old forgery would be things like the chloroacetamide in the ink sample (assuming that the ink does contain chloroacetamide, that Diamine was the only ink manufacturer ever to use chloroacetamide, and if the chloroacetamide did not get into the ink sample by some other means) or David Forshaw's observation that the psychopathology evidenced in the "Diary" comes from a reading of modern literature on the subject.
On the other hand, of course, the reference to the farthings might be taken as indicating a pre-1987 date for the composition of the "Diary". Anyone writing in 1988 or after might be expected to have turned to the latest literature on the subject and at least three of the most recent books (mine, Martin Fido's and Melvin Harris's) dismissed the farthings as a fiction. Had the diarist read those books then he/she might not have referred to the farthings being on the body.
(A small observation on why the "Diary" might not be genuine - or written by a contemporary policeman - is that it does not mention Schwartz and Lawende, something which the real murderer might have mentioned, especially Schwartz. On the other hand, of course, not much was known about Schwartz until the publication of Knight's book, which may in turn suggest a date of composition for the "Diary" predating Knight.) |
Author: Chris George
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 12:01 pm | | Hello, Paul:
Yes, per p. 100 of the 1993 U.S. Hyperion hardback edition of "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" by Shirley Harrison, the author notes:
"In 1988 the crime researcher and writer Simon Wood mentioned privately to one of our consultants that in a photograph of the dead Mary Jane Kelly on her bed there appeared to be an initial on the wall. There, above the bed, is a letter 'M'--the mark of Maybrick. To the side is another letter, 'F'. It is not a colour picture, but the smudgy letters could easily have been written in blood."
That the notion that there were TWO letters on the wall apparently did not originate with Simon Wood, who is stated by Ms. Harrison to have said in 1988 only that "there appeared to be an initial on the wall." The existence of a second letter, "F", was implied, as seen in the quote just given, by Ms. Harrison, i.e., to denote the initials of Florence Maybrick, wife of her Ripper suspect, Liverpool cottonbroker and known arsenic addict James Maybrick, the supposed writer of the diary. Additionally, the ideas that the letter "M" was "the mark of Maybrick" and that "the smudgy letters could easily have been written in blood" are claims that first appeared in print in Shirley Harrison's 1993 book.
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 05:19 am | | Hi Chris
Yes, I think it is right that Simon only observed the 'M' and, of course, he wouldn't have made any connection whatsoever between it and Maybrick. Shirley's advisor could have been me, Martin Fido or Keith Skinner, or all of us, since we were all very matey with Simon. But I don't think the knowledge was restricted to us. It is particularly interesting if the forger independently observed the "M", if, indeed, that it to what the forger was referring. |
Author: Lisby
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 10:44 am | | Hello again.
Now that I have brought up the "FM" (and I am really enjoying what you all are saying, by the way,) can I get your opinions on the watch? I heard there is some new evidence about this watch. Can any one bring me up to speed? (Needless to say, I have not yet seen this new book on the diary.)
Oh, and back to the initials--is it any one's opinion here that the computer enhancement done on the Kelly bedroom photo was faked? Photo enhancement is, of course, a standard investigative tool. Do you think it was used wrongly in this case?
Lisby |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 02:53 pm | | Hi Lisby!
No, I don't think the computer enhancement was "faked" in any sense - rather it made certain marks on the wall appear to be more significant than they really are. There is no doubt that, under certain circumstances, some of the blood splashes may seem to form an "M" - as Mr. Wood pointed out. The alleged "F", though, I consider to be the combined product of over-processing of the scanned picture, and wishful thinking on the part of certain writers.
What does anyone else think?
|
Author: Sean Miller
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 06:00 pm | | Libsy,
I think the big problem with this "case" is that we don't have a chance to go back and examine the scenes of the crimes - wouldn't it be nice to check the wall of Mary Kelly's room and see whether the texture suggests an "M" and "F". Similarly, how can one say whether photographic enhancement has been used "wrongly" - it might be that the murderer scrawled "FM" on the wall. It might be that the murderer actually scrawled something entirely different, or (more likely) scrawled nothing at all! Unfortunately, we can never know for definite who the murderer was, and so people clutch at straws - we can only take the evidence available and form opinions... others might say we will eventually know for sure, but short of a missing police file with a formally signed confession coming up I doubt it!
As for the watch, is it really relevent ? I don't think so. Having read the "new" book by Feldman I must unfortunately say that he does nothing for me. Shirley Harrison wrote a very compelling narrative, Feldman seems to get bogged down in details which really don't prove anything!
Sean |
Author: Lisby
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 11:35 am | | Yes, but is the watch real? If it is, and comes from a source independant of the diary, doesn't it help prove that either the diary is an old forgery or (less likely) genuine?
Everything I have read strongly indicates that the watch and its inscriptions are old. As I freely admit to being a novice, I was wondering if some of you who obviously have deep knowledge of these issues could enlighten me. Thanks! |
Author: Sean Miller
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 12:33 pm | | Lisby,
Sometimes novices can crack the conundrums where "old hands" get bogged down... don't keep putting yourself down!
I have shall to re-read Feldman's book about the watch, as I must admit I found the logic used to tie the things together so flawed that it wasn't worth considering. Perhaps this is me heading in one direction and not considering the rest...
Sean |
Author: cbeekman
Monday, 21 December 1998 - 06:49 pm | | In all the furor that the Maybrick Diary has stirred up, one point I see being given an extraordinary amount of weight is the ion migration test on the ink.
As an archaeologist (and this technique did appear in a technical journal in our field) I must note that a date of 1921 plus or minus 12 years is an incredible degree of accuracy for any dating method. This technique, described for the first time to my knowledge in 1984, is an extremely young dating method. We should keep in mind that any physico-chemical dating method goes through a very long introductory period during which we only half-know the major factors affecting the results. Carbon dating has taken about 35-40 years to reach a period of great stability in its dates. Obsidian hydration dating remains highly controversial after some 35 years, and many including myself have given up on it entirely.
The ion migration method should be seen in this light. An error range of +-12 years surpasses any physico-chemical dating method I've ever heard of.
What is interesting to me is that both opponents and proponents of the Diary lean (selectively) on this test to support their own position. I have probably seen this done most frequently by Maybrick supporters who wish to rebutt claims of modernity to the diary, but no one holds a monopoly on this particular mistake.
Unfortunately, the ion migration dating, and indeed most forms of dating based on statistical procedures, simply cannot support the interpretive weight that both sides give it. In my field, a range of 5, or 10, or more tests (each expensive!) will be considered as a whole before assigning dates to any given phenomenon, usually an archaeological "culture" or "period" of some extent. To try and use an unknown number of tests to categorically place a single object in time would be totally unacceptable in archaeology.
Perhaps the background of most Ripperologists is in the Humanities/Social Sciences, and not the Natural Sciences. I suggest greater caution before talking about technical methods, including the various ink-composition tests that have been done. None of the lay descriptions of these tests has been terribly clear. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 05:05 am | | | Thanks are due, I think, for cbeekman's comments above. I have always viewed with some suspicion the use made of the results of scientific tests on the "Diary" by both sides. It seems to me that the best that can be said about the results so far is that they remain totally inconclusive. Those who say that the Diary cannot be proved to be modern by scientific means conveniently sidestep the point that it cannot likewise be proved to date from 1888-9, and vice versa. In the absence of further testing, we should perhaps concentrate our attention on other areas of investigation (internal evidence, research into Maybrick's whereabouts at the time, and so on.) I look forward to reading Peter Birchwood's promised comments on the state of current Diary evidence. |
Author: Kieran Brakes
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 01:28 pm | | | Good point about the watch Lisby! It seems to have been forgotten about on this board!So if the diary is a forgery. Where does this leave us as regards to the watch? Was it Maybrick's? What about the owner Albert Johnson,in PHF's book it is speculated that Albert may be an illegitimate Maybrick.So it could well have been Maybrick's watch.What about the scratches?(although I admit they do seem to be a little convenient!)There's certainly more to the watch that meets the eye!! |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 12:50 pm | | Hi Kieran:
Imagine this scenario. The Maybrick diary is released and there is heavy press interest nationally but especially in Liverpool. The local papers had an early lead due to Mike Barrett gossiping to a journalist on the train coming back from his meeting with his agent at the end of April 1992. About a year later the watch appears. Bear in mind that the watch is not a gentlemans watch: the sort a businessman like Maybrick would wear on his chest. It's a lady's watch made (probably) in Liverpool and hallmarked in London 1846/7. Apart from the famous scratches and the JO there are marks inside indicating repair and possible pawning. It's unlikely that Florence would own it and unlikely that Maybrick's mother would own it. Now Melvin Harris has spent more time than I on investigating the watch so I'd refer you to his comments on the Casebook. If you read the technical reports by UMIST and Interface Analysis Centre you'll notice a fair amount of hedging. IAC had only a few hours to do their tests and were not able to issue a definite conclusion. Frankly, almost everything that has been said concerning the forensics of the watch have been attacked by one side or another and perhaps what is needed (as in the case of the diary itself) is a new and completely thorough and independent examination of the watch. For financial and other obvious reasons this is unlikely to happen.
Concerning the Johnsons, the problem is that we know very little about them. In Feldy's book the information that we are given is what Albert and Robbie told him. Robbie in fact became a close friend. Feldy says little about Albert but quite a bit about Robbie and what he does say gives us an interesting picture of the man. Shirley calls Albert "quietly dignified and clearly straightforward." This is on her first meeting! The point here is that all we really know about the Johnson brothers is what they wanted Feldy and Shirley to know. In order to prove (or disprove) an objects integrity and a man's veracity you investigate. You do not assume that because someone looks like a retired parson you should immediately entrust him with all your wealth. People who make this mistake are the people crowded around the man in the street showing them how easy it is to find the Queen when you only have three cards to choose from.
And as for Albert and Robbie being Maybricks, that is a fairy story. The link between the Maybricks and the Johnsons is based on: a/ a copy of a birth certificate which shows indications of alteration, b/ confusion between two common names: Johnson and Johnston, c/ odd ideas as to what constitutes genealogical proof and the determination to find the "facts" to prove a theory.
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Anonymous
Wednesday, 20 January 1999 - 05:37 pm | | | i beieve the diary is waste of time. it is written far too corny. a true sadistic mind would not dable with his crimes. it would seem more real with descriptions and emotions of the crimes. not just words like "bitch", and scary retellings of his accounts. i find the diary to be cheesy and boring at times. I think it is a great hoax. the real jack is still unknown. |
Author: Ortez
Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 05:24 pm | | What do readers think to the handwriting analysis by Hannah Koren? Remember, when presented with the suggestion that the diary was faked,she responded: "impossible".
Ortez |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 06:19 pm | | You will pass a polygraph test if you think what you're saying is true, whether it really is or isn't.
David |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Thursday, 18 March 1999 - 11:15 am | | Ortez:
There are two classes of handwriting "experts": graphologists and questioned document examiners. The first group, to which HK belongs suggest that handwriting shows a person's character, honesty, morals, etc. and is more akin to palmistry than science. The second group try to show whether a particular document is written by a particular person. Both groups have faults: certainly people have wrongfully been jailed due to testimony from QDE's but I wouldn't risk a 20p bet on the opinion of one of the first group.
Peter.
David:
The polygraph is a machine based on pseudo-science and can be used only to frighten the nervous and neurotic. God help us all when the day comes that it is accepted in court.
Peter. |
Author: Ortez
Wednesday, 24 March 1999 - 08:13 pm | | Peter:
Thanks for the info regarding handwriting "experts",I have to confess I was in complete ignorance of the subject.So as to considering any such evidence presented from graphologists, one must take it with a very large pinch of salt.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Digressing slightly,I began to wonder what the reaction would be if a piece of evidence,say,a police file was unearthed that established the true identity of the Ripper beyond any reasonable doubt.Would this be embraced or shunned by the school of Ripperology? Obviously,the writers who had claimed it was their candidate would be elated.But generally I could imagine a feeling of sorrow from all concerned.The proof of Fermat's Last Theorem completed by Andrew Wiles in 1995 brought an end to a famous mathematical conundrum over 300 years old.After the resulting joy had died down a feeling of melancholy arose.Wiles had deprived mathematics of its greatest riddle.I feel a similar feeling would emerge should any proof of the Ripper's identity be forthcoming.The mystery would be lost.I suppose the point I am trying to make is many Ripperologists would naturally be very sceptical about any such proof and would quickly dissmiss it out of hand without careful analysis of the evidence.
Please note I am not using this argument to support the diary as genuine.My own feelings are while I remain sceptical,I feel there is not enough evidence to show the diary is a hoax.
Ortez |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 24 March 1999 - 10:15 pm | | Hi Ortez,
I think that the chances of a police file establishing the identity of the RIpper beyond doubt are pretty unlikely. Most of the major players each had a different suspect so there mustn't have been a clear picture of who the Ripper was. Sure, they each had their suspicions but nothing that everyone agree upon. I do think, however, that documents will come to light that give us a greater clue of who the Ripper was.
Dela |
Author: bstubbs
Monday, 09 August 1999 - 08:28 am | | Hi There,
As a new person to the buletin board and maybe a little new to Ripperology (although I have read a least 10 books on the subject) - I wish to make another point regarding the diary. Which is that if the diary is real and was genuinely written by the murderer, whether Maybrick or not. Then can anybody offer any real proof which links the diary to the Dear Boss Letters (another supposedly vital piece of written ripper evidence). If there is a connection, does that prove anything in itself about either the identity of the murderer or the murders themselves?
My opinion is that the Dear Boss letters are genuine. Therefore, if a link can be realistically established between the letters and the diary, then this would go some way to authenticating to diary to the sceptics.
Bez
Bez |
|
|
|
|
