|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 712
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 1:45 pm: |       |
The diarist claims to want to succeed at ‘rhyming verse’ in his diary. As far as anyone can tell, he wasn’t aiming for his words ever to be set to music. There is no mention of writing lyrics, nor is James’ brother Michael ever described as a lyricist, whether incorrectly or otherwise. The only mention of Michael as a musician is when the diarist concedes that ‘he writes a merry tune’. It’s the art of writing verse, pure and simple, that the diarist wishes would come as easily to him as he believes it does to Michael.
Strangely enough, famous people are not limited to being good at what makes them famous and keeps them famous. For example, just because Jordan is known for having unfeasibly large breasts, it doesn’t mean she couldn’t possibly have any other ‘talents’ that might make a close female relative envious, but would not necessarily be known about by the general public.
It’s a non-argument, because the real James Maybrick would obviously have no need to remind himself that he has a famous brother, and a hoaxer would be trying to pass himself off as the real James writing in his own private diary - not someone who needs to mention why his brother was famous in order to add authenticity for his readers. One can try to compete on all sorts of levels with one’s siblings, but the competition would not necessarily extend to, or be limited to the special talent that made one of them famous, or the specific skill required for a chosen career. There is no indication that the James in the diary, or the real James, had any inclination to compete with Michael’s acknowledged talent for writing merry tunes. Equally there is no way to prove that Michael never tried his hand at the art of verse, or that James would never have wanted to compete with his brother in this way.
The most one can say is that a hoaxer, posing as James, would have been safe here because of something the historical record cannot show to be false. How much care would have been involved in making the language safe concerning the relationship between these two brothers, in order that good use could still be made of a sibling rivalry theme, is another question for another day.
What cannot, in my view, be argued is that the diarist’s words concerning Michael could not have been written by Michael's own brother, and therefore amount to ‘damning evidence’ of a hoaxer at work.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on February 09, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 3:25 pm: | |
Hi, Caz
I am speaking here of course as a non-believer in the Diary, so I would say that the Diarist has accepted the common view that Jack was a joker, a trickster, a rhymester. By the commonly accepted wisdom, the murderer wrote letters to the press lampooning the authorities. So therefore if Jack wrote a Diary he would naturally case the letters in similar terms and in order to fill tens of pages what would be more natural than to fall to writing rhymes as found in some of the "Ripper" letters?
All the best
Chris
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
Caz and Chris,
The diarist said he wants to do better than Michael who has succeeded. The difference might be slight, but I do think it's significant. Caz, while you're absolutely correct that famous people aren't necessarily only talented in that area that are famous for, talent and success are two different things. For a person to be considered to be successful at something, it usually require the acknowledgement of others. And for the diarist to express the jealousy that he appears to show toward Michael, it seems likely that it wasn't a minor "at home only" talent. Personally, I think a literal reading of the text shows that the diarist thinks Michael is writing the lyrics.
We cannot entirely rule out the possibility that Michael beat James in some sort of poetry contest in their youth. Or that Michael had a habit of writing verse at home. However there is no support in the historical record for such a thing, and if Michael were to have been successful at rhyming verse, I would be at a complete loss to explain why he wouldn't be writing his own lyrics. Can you? Frankly I don't buy it.
I think that Chris hit the nail on the head regarding the motivation behind the rhymes, and that Michael was used to give the use of rhyme some depth and reason. I also find it interesting, that when I've looked into Michael's background in various sources he is often described as a singer, and a writer of songs, or a singer/composer, etc. In very few cases is his career looked at in depth, which would make it a fairly natural mistake for a forger to make.
I do agree with you Caz that it's not impossible that the words could have been written by Michael's own brother, but in my opinion it's extremely unlikely. And with no historical evidence whatsoever to support the suggestion that Michael had any skill with verse, it may not be damning evidence against the diary. But it does seem to "darn" it pretty hard.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Regards,
John
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Hi, John and Caz:
By the way, I should think the "mistake" that the Diarist makes in characterizing Michael Maybrick as a wordsmith and having James want to "out-do" him in the rhyming department should throw serious doubt on the theory apparently favored by Bruce Robinson that Michael himself could have written the Diary. If Michael Maybrick was behind the Diary we would expect that he would characterize his own artistic endeavors correctly. No, it seems to me the rhyming of the Diarist and the described rivalry with Michael is contrived by someone who just got the situation wrong. Sounded good on paper as the person wrote it but in the clear light of day, in the face of the facts about Michael Maybrick, it doesn't pass muster.
All the best
Chris |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 1:05 pm: | |
Hi John,
I suppose I would sum up my argument by saying that success is relative – the diary giving us one relative who imagines another relative is relatively successful at writing verse when compared with his own efforts – private efforts, at which he is presumably trying to succeed, regardless of whether another living soul would ever acknowledge his success.
Hi Chris,
You may be right about the diary author’s motivation to write verse, and of course the real killer, or the real James Maybrick, may never have done any such thing, either in private or in letters sent to third parties.
Of course, if any historical evidence does exist that can show Michael tried his hand at writing verse, and succeeded in turning out better and funnier little rhymes than those in the diary, I suppose a hoaxer could always have found that evidence for himself. But it hardly matters because it’s unlikely that any evidence exists for Michael not being the sort of man who would ever have written poetry, or that any private efforts that came to light would be considered less successful than the (supposedly) private efforts of the diarist.
As I say, the specific references to Michael (the theme of this thread) don’t, by themselves, show that his brother could not, or would not, have made them.
I rest my case miluds.
Love,
Caz
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 193
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 1:43 pm: | |
"I place this now in a place where it shall be found. I pray whoever should read this will find it in their heart to forgive me. Remind all, whoever you may be, that I was once a gentle man."
The diary is not, nor was it meant to be a "private" document, regardless of who wrote it. It is explicitly directed at readers throughout. It is clearly constructed and intended as a public expression and acknowledges this itself a number of times.
Just a reminder.
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 8:32 pm: | |
Dear Caz
I said in an earlier posting elsewhere that I would try and find out from some musical colleagues if there was any more information that could be turned up concerning Michael and his musical and possibly poetic life.
Surprise surprise, there really isn’t any, and the little that does seem to be recorded is contradictory and somewhat inaccurate, including Shirley Harrison’s source in her book, who likens him to Cole Porter. I don’t think so!
Michael Maybrick was a well known baritone in his day, and was famous under his own name. His ‘nom de plume’ was Stephen Adams, the composer of drawing room ballads so popular at the time. It is not thought that it was generally known they were one and the same person at the time.
What does seem to stand up though, is that Michael was a close and life long friend of Fred Weatherly, a very well known Victorian Barrister and lyricist who wrote the words to songs by many other composers as well as Michael. Weatherly was responsible for setting new words to the Londonderry air which we know today as Danny boy.
There is good reason to think that Michael and Fred were a great deal more than just good friends, and Fred wrote a ballad/poem called “Friend o’ mine” which was a sort of tribute to Michael after his death in 1913. It was subsequently set to music by someone else. Obviously!
If Fred wrote ballads/poetry to Michael, then I suppose there is no reason to doubt that Michael could well have reciprocated. The fact remains that the one person who was probably closest to Michael in his life certainly did write poetry of a sort, and was very successful at it.
I don’t suppose it matters that much anyway, or that it proves anything one way or the other in the great debate, but it does at least show that Michael was almost certainly closely connected to at least one person who’s profession was indeed “the art of verse”.
Regards
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 724
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 8:39 am: | |
Hi John,
I get the point, but why do I also get the feeling it’s a bit of a circular argument again?
Even if the diarist intended right from the start that the ‘confession’ would eventually be seen (and the author’s success or lack of it at rhyming verse acknowledged), the character in the diary (whoever 'created' him) obviously intended to keep his thoughts and all those funny little rhymes strictly private all the while he was alive and active, and still writing them down, and the character would not have known for sure at any point, even when writing it shall be found, and expressing his wishes directly to the finder whoever you may be, that his words would ever actually reach another living soul, let alone be spread around the globe by Robert Smith. 
For all the character knows, while trying to succeed with his own efforts, Battlecrease could burn down, or the world could end, and no one would ever know what a rotten poet he was.
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 725
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 9:04 am: | |
Hi Paul,
Thanks very much for the information. It does appear that Michael was a very private man. So private that I could find no mention of his name, or pseudonym, in the edition of The Encyclopaedia of Music in my local library, originally produced by Charles Groves, a contemporary of Michael’s. If anyone has access to the first edition, or subsequent early editions, it would be interesting to know if he gets a mention in any of those. My brother, a keen amateur musician, expressed great surprise at this apparent omission.
Perhaps Fred was so successful, and so wonderful at it in Michael’s eyes, that he didn’t feel fit to hold a candle to his friend in that department. I suppose James could have felt much the same about anything Michael ever did.
I don’t know about you, but it must have been odd living in an era when parents thought nothing of giving a child the same name as one who had died in infancy. Can’t have done much for one’s sense of self, could it?
Love,
Caz
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 8:49 pm: | |
Caz
I couldn't agree more. The Maybrick's seem to have been a pretty mixed up and disfunctional bunch to say the least.
Maybrick isn't mentioned in "Grove" nowadays simply because he has drifted into obscurity with so many other songwriters of that era.
I bet you're right though about there being a mention in an early edition, and there are plenty of them about still.
Weatherly Wrote his autobiography too, but I can't say i have a burning ambition to read it!
regards
Paul |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
In the journal regarding his brother and his rhyming reference, we are aware
of Michaels bent towards the musical composition as opposed to lyricism. It
is however usually a combination of input from both the musician and
lyricist that achieve the resultant compilation. Both parties must be
competent to a degree in both fields, therefore it is likely that Michael
was able to compose lyrics. (Ironic also that he later had a piece entitled
"Everyone loves Jack").
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 8:18 pm: | |
Hi Tiddley.
If you take the most famous of all Victorian Composer/Lyricist partnerships as an example, Gilbert and sullivan, it was the fact that Gilbert's sometimes outrageous words were set to such wonderfully po faced music by Sullivan that set them apart from all the rest.
They were two very different personalities, and Gilbert had no musical ability to speak of, whilst Sullivan was no poet.
Of course the Stephen Adams song "We all love Jack" refers to a sailor, as in Jack Tar.
Regards
Paul |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 10:35 am: | |
When he proclaims that Michael Maybrick did write verse, he misses the point completely. Almost every literate person in those days dabbled in verse at one time or another; it was part of the culture, but my passages are not concerned with that.
The above are the words of the late Melvin Harris, and are from one of his Casebook dissertations. I thought this was most interesting in the light of what has been discussed above.
Paul |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 832
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:32 am: | |
Quite so, Paul.
I think this obsession with a hoaxer getting Michael's profession wrong (because the diarist dabbles in verse and compares this with Michael's relative success at doing the same) is mainly a result of first assuming a modern hoaxer wrote the diary and then judging how well he/she did it.
And the conclusion is that a modern hoaxer would naturally want his/her readers to see obvious references to Michael's famous talent, and that in doing so this hoaxer made a mistake and thought Michael wrote the words as well as composed the music for his famous songs.
I say 'as well as', and not 'rather than', because the diarist is well aware that Michael writes a 'merry tune'.
Of course, if James had been writing about his brother in his diary, he would not have been thinking about readers way in the future, and their expectations of what a hoaxer would or should have included to make the diary more authentic sounding. He need not have referred to Michael's career at all, or he could have covered the entire 63 pages in jealous utterings about not being able to write a single note of music.
His choices would have been totally unrestricted.
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Caz and Paul,
I'm sorry, but I think it's still pretty thin. The diarist clearly states that Michael was "successful" at writing verse, not that he dabbled.
We need some historical evidence to back up Michael's skill with verse before accepting it blindly in my opinion. If he truly was gifted in writing verse, it should be possible to dig up some evidence of that fact.
If no such evidence exists, than doesn't rule out the possibility that the diary is genuine, but it certainly is a yet another legitimate cause to be skeptical of the diaries authenticity.
"I think this obsession with a hoaxer getting Michael's profession wrong (because the diarist dabbles in verse and compares this with Michael's relative success at doing the same) is mainly a result of first assuming a modern hoaxer wrote the diary and then judging how well he/she did it."
I don't think it has anything to do with assumptions Caz. It has to do with testing the diary against history to see if it matches up. When you have a disputed document of this type, it's standard practice. It's tested on many fronts, scientific (the juries still out), historical accuracy (not conclusive, but not looking good for the diary IMO), handwriting and letter formation (which the diary fails miserably), and provenance (which again the diary fails).
Best Regards,
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 862
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
I agree John, but there is no way to tell that the history doesn't match up, with regard to Michael's relative success at writing verse (the diarist is specifically comparing his own stabs at poetry with his own opinion of the quality of his brother's poetry - song lyrics don't get a mention).
All we have is no evidence either way, but pretty much a racing certainty that Michael would have tried his hand at poetry at some time or another and succeeded in producing better funny little rhymes than our diarist!
And I'm sorry, but if Michael had not been famous for anything, we'd be left with one brother comparing himself unfavourably with another, in his diary (hoax or not). My brother is a far more 'successful' pianist than I ever was. But he has never been paid a penny for doing so and only plays to entertain close friends. If I kept a diary, I would have no hesitation in writing that he succeeded in playing the piano beautifully, whereas I couldn't bear to inflict my playing on anyone!
Love,
Caz
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 8:49 am: | |
Hi Caz
Isn’t it strange. When the diary gets its facts exactly “right” according to recorded history, the hoaxer must have just copied it from a book.
When it doesn’t, the hoaxer must have got it wrong…!
Can’t win either way can it?
Regards
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 10:14 am: | |
Paul
But to be fair, imagine the frustration of those sceptical about the diary:
When the diary gets it right, it "rings true".
When the diary gets the facts wrong, Maybrick must just have been fantasising, or mischievously copying things out of the newspaper.
Can't lose either way?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 874
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 7:16 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Don't you believe the ripper ever fantasised about murder and mutilation, then?
Seems to me most of the old 'bum' notes have now been shown to 'ring true' after all.
I've just noticed something else - the meaning of 'success'. It all depends on whether one succeeds 'at' something, or succeeds 'in' doing something.
In the diary, Sir Jim never once says that Michael is a success 'at' writing song lyrics.
He only says that Michael 'can succeed in rhyming verse'.
In other words, when Michael writes poetry, he manages to make it rhyme successfully.
Just like my brother succeeds in playing a piece on the piano with no bum notes, while I know the notes, but don't usually succeed in playing them all in the right order.
QED now?
Love,
Caz
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 7:25 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
Seems to me most of the old 'bum' notes have now been shown to 'ring true' after all.
Easily said, but I don't remember seeing your explanations of - to name but a few - Kelly's misplaced breasts, Kelly's key, the non-existence farthings, and the "tin match box empty" (the last of which, it seems to me is equally a problem for those believing the diary to have been written before 1988).
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 883
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 1:31 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Well I'm not going over old ground just because you don't remember all that's been said by myself and others concerning your continuing concerns!
I did say 'most', and perhaps I'm just tone deaf and can't hear all the bum notes you can.
I'm happy to leave it there.
Any ideas about the H 9 3 and 1275 in the watch yet? Or will you wait until the reports can be published? I look forward to hearing your bum notes about those in due course.
Love,
Caz
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
Well I'm not going over old ground just because you don't remember all that's been said by myself and others concerning your continuing concerns!
It doesn't surprise me that you decline to reply. I remember the previous replies perfectly well, and as I said, they fell very much into the category of "the diarist was a fantasist/amnesiac".
But it's fine by me. On the whole I'd rather not waste more time debating these points.
After all, most sensible people have long ago concluded that the diary is clearly a fake. if you're asking people to believe otherwise, of course the onus is on you to explain the errors. If you let the argument go by default, that's entirely satisfactory!
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 886
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:59 am: | |
Hi Chris,
I'm not asking you to believe anything! The onus is on you, in this topic, to show a hoaxer was at work because of the references to Michael succeeding in rhyming verse.
If you can't do it without dragging MJK's breasts over here from the thread where they belong, you can't do it.
I can see why you'd rather not waste more time debating this point. But it would be really nice if you could one day force yourself to concede just one tiny little point before going off to find the next straw to clutch at.
Love,
Caz
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris
If you read my message more carefully, you'll see that I'd rather not waste more time debating any of these points with you!
(Much more than) enough said ...
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 35
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 4:56 am: | |
Good morning Caz
”I say 'as well as', and not 'rather than', because the diarist is well aware that Michael writes a 'merry tune'.”
Our hoaxer was a wee bit cleverer when he wrote this than you’d first think. We have already discovered that there is virtually nothing currently in print concerning Michael’s songs, and hasn’t been for many a long year, and yet our diarist refers to a “merry tune”, not a “pleasant one” or a “pretty one”, or any other adjective he could have picked.
Only two of Michaels songs are remembered today, both of them are stodgy semi-religious offerings, far from “merry”, and even they are very hard to find with any available recordings dating from the 78 era.
A “merry tune” is the last thing your latter day hoaxer would pick, based on what is generally known today, in fact there is a lot of duff information around concerning Michael, alias Stephen Adams, and our hoaxer hasn’t been taken in by any of it .
Guess what his earlier songs comprised of though? Jolly little ditties about sailors and such, The Midshipmite, The Nancy Lee, We all love Jack, etc. etc.
A lucky guess I suppose, in another little throwaway line in the diary.
Just one more for the list. 
Regards
Paul
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
