|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stuart Owen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 6:44 pm: |       |
I apologize i'm new to this and uninformed. I'm curious as to why James Maybrick is the leading vote getter for Jack the Ripper poll when someone has a signed affidavit stating he forged the diary? I apologize, i feel like a young child asking his parents why does the sun rise or something?
Other than the diary is there evidence (circumstantial anyway) linking Maybrick to the murders?
Is there evidence that the person who claims to have forged the diary, claimed to do so for publicity or something similar? i'm new to this and see an affidavit where someone claims a forgery and then i view a debate on the authenticity of the diary and am puzzled. Please excuse my uninform-ed-ness. I apologize for it.
Thank you in advance for any information.
Stuart |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Stuart--I appreciate your confusion. No, there's nothing linking Maybrick to the Whitechapel murders, except for the so-called "Maybrick Diary" that showed up in 1991. Now & then someone hazards the opinion that Maybrick is a good suspect anyway, but this always puzzles the heck out of me, because there is nothing to suggest that a middle-aged cotton broker living 200 miles away from Whitechapel has any other connection to the case at all.
Paul Feldman once made the claim that the police were looking for a man named "Mibrac", but this has been shown to be the wildest of speculations.
As you note, the man who brought the Diary forward (Mike Barrett) later confessed that he forged it. He then recanted his confession. Mike's an odd chap, and his statements seemingly depend on the mood he is in, or the intended audience. His confession is somewhat of a wash. Parts of it have been seemingly confirmed; other parts of it have been shown to be utter rubbish.
The debate is largely a tussle between a very few people who believe the Diary is "more substantial than previously thought", and a very few people who are evidently infuriated by the fact that the opposition hasn't thrown in the towel and admitted that it's a modern forgery. And so it goes on. (All in my humble opinion, of course).
I rather think that Barrett wrote it with the help of one or two others. There are elements in the text that suggest it was composed after 1988. Of couse, anyone accused of a crime has no moral obligation to cooperate with the "prosecution." I fully admit that I can't produce the evidence for my suspicions, and it is unlikely that anyone else ever will either. I imagine we'll eventually learn the truth some thirty or forty years hence, when one of the parties involved reaches old age---a time when such matters often get cleared up. Then again, maybe we won't. RP
PS. The poll, of course, isn't scientific. There's nothing ruling out that the ballet box wasn't stuffed. Still, there have been several books on the Maybrick Diary published, and they've all done rather well, so there are certainly a good deal of people floating about who think Maybrick is the Ripper.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on February 12, 2004) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
Ughh... That should be "ballot box" of course.
In regards to the historic James Maybrick, he seems to have made a number of trips to America; many of these date from the last part of August or the first part of September, which coincides with the height of the Cotton season. We know from Florie's trial that he returned to America "three or four times" since their marriage.. One particular odd voyage took place in Sept. 1883. James Maybrick ("mechant") travelling from Liverpool to New York is listed as being accompanied by a Mrs. Mary Maybrick and a child, James Maybrick, age 10/12 months. Not sure of the explanation on this one.
|
I Sawyer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:39 am: | |
At the risk of starting (yet) another diary thread why don't you check through the dissertations and archived boards on this excellent Casebook site and you should find the answer to your question.
In a nutshell the main reason that it is STILL being debated here is that certain persons keep resuscitating it when it should have disappeared into the oblivion it deserves ages ago.
(Message edited by admin on February 12, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 8:27 am: | |
Hi All,
Strangely enough, the majority of posters who ‘keep resuscitating’ the diary debate and produce the most lengthy, involved and repetitive arguments, are those who were convinced many moons ago that the thing is a modern hoax.
The tiny minority (including me), who bother to post responses of the ‘not so sure’ kind, tend to be at the receiving end of the accusations of trying to ‘keep the dream alive’. If all the firm anti-diarists just stated their entrenched beliefs and announced their retirement from the debate, I would not bother resuscitating it at some later date unless I had some new information. Otherwise I would simply respond to any questions asked or observations made, as and when warranted.
For the life of me I don’t understand why these anti-diarists don’t simply post the following and be done with it:
Hi All,
The handwriting indicates the diary is a fake.
Mike’s forgery claims plus the Sphere Guide indicate a modern fake.
I’ll get me coat.
(25 word rule)
Instead, just look at all the thousands of posts over at least the last five years, and still coming thick and fast, containing hundreds of words to support the above indications, using far less convincing arguments!
I won't be held responsible for a single one of them.
Hi RJ,
Others have described the diary in the past as a ‘brilliant’ hoax. I believe Chris George did once, though I’m sure he will correct me if it was another Christopher.
Yet you ‘rather think that Barrett wrote it’ with a little help from his friends.
While everyone is, of course, fully entitled to their own opinion, mine, for what it’s worth, is that no one who knows, or has ever been close to Mike Barrett would consider it remotely feasible that he created, or helped to create, the diary. Even the idea that the person who did create it would have willingly had Mike help with the process is not one that could be entertained with any degree of confidence.
All you have is Mike’s word, given and taken back many times over the last ten years, that he has inside knowledge about the faking of the diary. Neither of us has seen the copy of the Sphere Guide, which is claimed by some to have been used. There is no proof that he knows anything about the materials used, including the ink or where it was obtained. If we had such proof we would all be able to forget the whole thing.
Perhaps you are right, and perhaps all those who know Mike, and simply don’t believe he could have had anything to do with creating this diary, are in denial or just plain wrong. But they will never be convinced that you are right, unless someone can come up with something pretty spectacular that doesn’t rely on the same old lies and claims and ‘evidence’ from Mike on which you and many others are currently relying.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
|
stuart owen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 6:53 pm: | |
THANK YOU very much R.J. for the info! and also thank you I Sawyer. This certainly does clear up my confusion, i VERY MUCH appreciate your taking the time to answer my question. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Stuart Owen |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 603
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
Hi, Caz
I am not sure I would characterize the Diary as as "a brilliant hoax" so much as "a lucky hoax." As I remarked on these boards recently, I really do think that in any other field the Diary would have been long retired and dismissed as a forgery. For many reasons, beginning with its lack of provenance and the fact that the handwriting is not in Maybrick's known hand, it cannot be what it purports to be. Rather I see the Diary as a rather crude attempt to put Maybrick in the frame as the Whitechapel murderer emulating the Ripper letters and with many contrived and phony sounding passages inconsistent with what we know about serial killers.
It is though a luckily written artifact in that there are some shades of doubt about even the possible goofs such as the reference to the Poste House pub in Cumberland Street, Liverpool, not known by that name in 1888, if that, that is, this was the establishment the penman was referencing, and other aspects such as the possible farthings at the Chapman murder scene, MJK's breasts, the lost key of 13 Miller's Court, the missing heart, the "letter here and letter there", etc., etc.
Another indicator that the Diary is not what it pretends to be is that it contains nothing really new or startling about the murders or about Maybrick himself.
The Maybrick Diary though is a most fortunate hoax because the hoaxer does not put his foot wrong in any dramatic fashion apart for the mistake of not making the writing look like James Maybrick's.
All the best
Chris |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 735
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Hi All,
The handwriting indicates the diary is a fake.
Mike’s forgery claims plus the Sphere Guide indicate a modern fake.
I’ll get me coat.
Regards Monty
 |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
Hi, Monty:
Getting your coat?!!! Do you think we should treat you to a pub lunch at the Ten Bells then?   
Chris
*** Buzz of conversation, clinking of glasses, much Ripper talk ha ha *** |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 5:41 am: | |
It is not a diary, it's a journal of the authors thoughts. It's not a hoax, it's genuine. Maybrick is JTR. Some further info will no doubt come to light in the near future.
I'll get me coat. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 736
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 11:07 am: | |
Hi Monty,
Thanks for paying attention and giving us all we could possibly need by way of an opinion regarding the diary. Well done indeed sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar to boot – or rather, not to boot. 
Hi Chris,
Sorry about that, I could have sworn you once described the diary as a ‘brilliant’ hoax. I think I have the reference somewhere, so I’ll check it sometime to see which other Chris wrote it and offer you yet another grovelling apology.
I would imagine the very first step towards creating a brilliant hoax would be to try to make the handwriting look like it could be Maybrick’s, and at least to make sure no one could ever liken it to the hoaxer’s own hand.
If we assume, for example, that Mike knows who penned the diary, and/or composed it, and if we also believe the claim that Tony Devereux was involved in some way, it certainly wasn’t brilliant of anyone to volunteer Tony’s name, which would have the inevitable effect of offering up his handwriting, and that of all his friends and associates, to thousands of pairs of penetrating eyes, all trying to detect possible similarities.
Talking of penetrating eyes, many people have expressed their concern over the ‘coincidental’ timing in mid-1993 of the ‘discovery’ of the watch scratches, following the breaking news about the diary. To be strictly even-handed about this, we ought to keep in mind that the coincidental timing actually began a year earlier, when the diary first reached the hands of its publisher-to-be, and the watch first reached the hands of its private owner. A private owner might be more likely to want to look closely inside his purchase at some point than a jeweller, whose sole aim would normally be to make sure he can sell the thing on quickly for a decent profit. It actually took almost a year for Albert to have occasion to inspect his watch really closely, and we know what was found when he did.
I wonder how long it had been, going back from mid-1992, since the watch was previously in private hands, and looked at with private eyes - eyes that would have been interested enough to find such scratches and decipher them had they been there.
Just a thought.
Love,
Caz
|
Steve
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 5:01 am: | |
Hi peeps, I'm new to this debate and don't really know much, i've only seen the michael winner documentary claiming it to be Maybrick so my judgement is completely one sided at the mo. Saying that though it did seem pretty convincing to me what with the watch and the Maybrick family crest "time reveals all" and the diary being accurate about the killings and mentionings of the games he played on the police with his name and stuff. The only evidence against him that i can remember was that Maybricks will was signed differently and he wrote his daughters name wrong suggesting a hoax and that Barrett has admitted it was a hoax. But i hear he said that to get the press off his back or something?
What i would like to know is if it was Barrett or anyone else, has anyone actually said (if it was an hoax) why somebody would accuse Maybrick of this? What did they or Barrett have against him? Is there also any iron clad evidence to suggest it wasn't Maybrick? |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
Stuart,
Despite the lingering Area-51 style insistence that often appears here, it's been clearly established for some time that the document in question is an ahistorical fake.
It was not written either by the real James Maybrick or the person or persons who committed these murders.
Who wrote it? We still don't know.
If you are interested in pursuing this separate and specific question, you'll find plenty of opportunities around here, as you can see. Unfortunately, much of that discussion remains buried within an endless cycle of repetitious chatter designed largely, I suspect, to alleviate boredom.
All the best,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 885
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:36 am: | |
Hi Steve,
It has been clearly established in John's opinion that the diary is an ahistorical fake.
No one knows why a hoaxer might have picked on Maybrick because we don't know if a hoaxer wrote the diary. And no, Maybrick has no alibi for the murder dates as far as I know.
In John's opinion, it was not written by James Maybrick or one of the Whitechapel murderers. But no one actually knows that for a fact yet, otherwise it wouldn't have remained one of the most hotly debated topics since the Casebook began. It insults the intelligence of several tens of posters here to suggest every one of them knows it's a fake yet they still take time and effort to ask their questions and offer their observations and present new facts.
John admits he has no idea who wrote it or when, and others are still working on establishing its true origins, whatever they may be. We obviously can't change history, so the diary is what it is, regardless of any one person's opinion you are being offered here.
I don't know why John responded to Stuart rather than to you.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on March 18, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 928
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 12:23 pm: | |
John,
I mean no offense but if you find all talk of this diary repetitious chatter designed largely, I suspect, to alleviate boredom then why write on this thread at all?
Just because you have decided in your mind that the diary is a fake it doesn't make it fact.
I am myself leaning towards it being a fake but I am still not sure and would never say that it is a fake and that's a fact because it's not.
Sarah |
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 23
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 1:14 pm: | |
Hi Steve
Welcome to the Diary discussion. Please do hang around and join in. A few more with a genuinely open mind would be most welcome I think.
The discussion has been moving along nicely of late, and its nice to see people with something worthwhile to say taking part.
And whatever anyone else has to say, you make up your own mind...
Regards
Paul |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 202
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
You ask me, "why write on this thread at all?"
As I said, "to alleviate boredom."
As for the diary, it's an ahistorical fake and it's been proven to be so many times over. The fact that there are still people who hang on to hope and continue to make excuses and offer vague possibilities despite all of that is no surprise, but it doesn't make the book any less of a fake, just like it doesn't make Area-51 really a secret alien autopsy lab.
There are always going to be true believers and genuine doubters and those just not willing to give up and admit what even they already know. That's true in almost every such issue, from ancient astronauts building the pyramids to water stains on the glass sides of a building being a miracle from the Blessed Virgin Mary (it happened here in my neck of the woods and the simple explanation didn't matter to many).
But this book was definitely not written by the real James Maybrick or the real killer(s).
Anyone here want to prove me wrong?
In any case, the interesting question of who wrote it remains, so there'll be plenty to talk about and always reason to check in even if no new information concerning the book is available (as it hasn't been for ages now).
In the meantime, all the best,
--John
PS: For the record, I was responding to Stuart Owen's original question in my earlier message, not to Steve's post.
(Message edited by omlor on March 18, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 932
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 5:25 am: | |
John,
it's an ahistorical fake and it's been proven to be so many times over
Please enlighten me.
Anyone here want to prove me wrong?
Can you prove that you are right?
I'm not saying I believe the diary is genuine but I feel I have missed something here. I thought it hadn't been proven that it was a fake at all yet.
Sarah |
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 26
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Hi Sarah
Nice to see you here again.
If you look back over the years there’s a clearly established pattern, a strange and irrational state of denial that sets in from time to time. It’s a sort of comfort thing I think. If you just remind yourself it’s a worthless fake every now and again it makes you feel better.
Of course nobody has proved anything either way. I sense we are getting closer bit by bit, and there are indeed some new verifiable facts coming out about the watch, which will have clear implications for the date of the “Diary hoax”.
Hope to see you here again soon…...
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 7:33 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
There are now so many ways in which the diary has proven to be both incorrect and ahistorical, from the handwriting to the content to the absence of provenance to the rhetorical structure and style, that in rational terms it has now become simply a question of pursuing the mystery of who created the hoax. All the relevant details are here and on the archive CD and especially in the dissertation section of the Casebook. Read it all through and you'll come to the same conclusion the rest of the world has (excepting the lingering fringe of the faithful that work to keep hope alive). Denying this, as Paul says, is indeed "strange and irrational" -- well, not always, sometimes the motives are more recognizable and perfectly rational, to be sure.
Also, remember that the diary is a "discovered" artifact -- therefore the onus for proof remains upon its claims to be genuine and those who would attempt to keep them alive, not the other way around. So your response to my challenge indicates nothing.
If I showed up on a website about Aliens or Crop Circles or the Earth really being flat and the moon walk being a hoax, I'd get the same sort of messages from the locals -- "Sure, you say that, but it hasn't really been proven, not really, because what about...." There's always hope for some. So that's to be expected.
But read the complete record and you'll see just why I can say without any fear of history ever proving me wrong that the real James Maybrick simply did not write this book.
Thanks for the interest. Happy reading.
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 894
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Hi John,
But you wouldn't show up on those websites telling the inmates they were wrong, would you?
Yet you can't resist showing up here, to tell a handful of people you don't know, and who don't know you, that they are crazy to doubt the diary is a modern fake, even in light of the newly revealed watch evidence.
Something tells me you can't have enough other places you'd prefer to go.
Love,
Caz |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
Caz,
You ask, "you wouldn't show up on those websites telling the inmates they were wrong, would you?"
Sure I would, if I was interested in the history and the field.
And I've still got lots of other cool places I regularly go, both electronically and in the real world. But thanks for the concern.
--John |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 938
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:06 pm: | |
John,
There is no absolute proof though, not 100%. It's how people make their own minds up.
I actually believe in alien visits and why not? Also, there was no proof that the moon walk was faked.
You do seem to be a very skeptical person.
I do think the diary is probably a fake but I still have an open mind.
Sarah |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 1:36 pm: | |
Fair enough, Sarah.
Do continue reading the stuff I mentioned and thanks for your response.
All the best,
--John  |
steve
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:39 pm: | |
Hi again peeps. The more i read into this the more i believe that the diary has to be genuine. The evidence seems overwhelming. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
