|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 961
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 11:49 am: |       |
Steve,
What evidence do you mean?
Sarah |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 5:19 am: | |
John V Omlor wrote: "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)."
Looking at the various postings ref: the journal and opinions expressed plus the voting, I would say that the rest of the world has come to a conclusion, but it is you lingering on the fringe.
RJ Palmer wrote: "there's nothing linking Maybrick to the Whitechapel murders, except for the so-called "Maybrick Diary" that showed up in 1991."
This is probably not entirely true, though only time will tell, we'll see.
No-one, at present can categorically state that the journal is either genuine or a hoax, and they shouldn't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I certainly believe the journal to be 100% genuine, it is so involved, personal and complex that it is often the miniscule detail that gives the biggest pointers to its authenticity. These are often missed by many. Though more of a journal, it can be seen as a diary by dating some of the events relevant to entries in the diary. It is in fact quite accurate and chronologically correct to relevant events.
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 6:34 pm: | |
Tiddleyboar,
I agree completely. The level of personal, psychological complexity in the words of the diary, the sophisticated and deeply insightful nature of those words on those pages is just staggering. There's simply no way a forger could have written that stuff. Those rhymes? That anger? That cruelty and hatred? What normal person could have created a character that deranged? Who would have thought to have a drug crazed serial killer sound that obsessed and irrational? It certainly would never have occurred to me.
And the accuracy is amazing. Over and over again the diary actually corrects history! We thought we knew stuff, like where Mary Kelly's breasts were and what James's brother really did that made him so successful and stuff, and it turns out there's so much we didn't know, like about those murders in Manchester and the existence of Mrs. Hammersmith, and the close call where Abberline almost caught Jack (well, maybe a couple of 1988 movie writers knew that, but no one else). In all of these cases, the diary conflicts directly with the historical record, thereby proving its authenticity, since it corrects history in ways that only the real James could possibly know. I never would have guessed that the real Jack the Ripper saw the unpublished police reports on his crimes, would you? Or that the same guy wrote all those letters from all those different places in all those different handwritings. It's phenomenal. And of course, the very fact that the handwriting in the book looks nothing like the real James's finally proves that the thing is real. So I'm not sure there's anything left to argue about. The poll here says it all. James must have been Jack.
I mean sure, this website is hardly "the rest of the world," but it's pretty damn close if you ask me, and everyone around here knows Maybrick was the Ripper (well, at least those who vote and post the most do, and that's what counts).
I'm glad we've agreed on this finally. I look forward to joining you in the defence of this brilliant document.
Yours in psychological brotherhood,
--John
|
Steve
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 6:36 am: | |
Hiya Sarah, these are just some of the things which made me come to the conclusion Maybrick is Jack the Ripper..
The watch and family crest, Maybrick went to the trouble to find out the latin meaning to "time reveals all" it could have been anything yet he chose that. What significance does "time reveals all" have if the watch isn't genuine?
The Diego Laurenz letter, Diego = James, Laurenz = Florence. The author of the letter said he'd be in New York. Maybrick had Business interests there.
The Whitechapel connection, Whitechapel Liverpool, Whitechapel London.
The pun in the punch "Turn round three times and catch whom you MAY"
Maybrick knew the Eastend very well and had business interests there.
Scientific tests of the diary conclude it dates from the late 19th century.
Scientific tests of the watch dates to around 1888/89.
All scientific tests still haven't confirmed with out a doubt it to be a forgery.
A powder called bone black was found in the binding of the diary which was used to weaken the side effects of strychnine, which was used by Maybrick.
Maybrick had a motive, is wife was being unfaithful.
He had the oppurtunity, the murders took place at the weekends and there's no evidence of him being anywhere else at the time of the ripper murders.
The author of the diary knew things which only the Ripper could have known, the empty tin box, the removal of Mary Kelly's heart.
The M's/markings, what significance do they have if the diary is an hoax?
Maybrick was a frequent user of arsenic which made him paranoid and delusional.
I'm finding out more things all the time, but they were the reasons that made me believe it was Maybrick. |
Dawn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 8:27 pm: | |
Arguments against the diary -
1, James was a cotton merchant, hardly what you would call educated enough to write the diary considering the detail involved in the stories.
2, The actual bound edition of the diary is missing the first 40 some pages. You have just revealed that a family member was the most notorious killer in history, what could have been more damaging then that to cause the first pages to be removed?
3, James takes credit for the Stride murder - Sorry that killing wasnt done by the Ripper.
4, If only one thing, the diary does not match known facts about that case that were assumed to be accurate at the time it was written; which later proved to be false, so the writer of the diary was not the killer unless he changed the story to throw off the police in the event the diary was discovered while he was still alive. Highly unlikely as it was a very private and personal book which only he would have known about.
5, to take credit for the "Dear Boss" letter and other correspondences with the police and newspapers proves the writer of the diary was not aware that only one of the letters was genuine and that one being the one sent to George Lusk was not even signed by Jack.
6, If the diary were in fact genuine the owner would have allowed any and all testing of the material, ink, possible DNA left by the writer in the hairs of his hand which are now seated in the folds of the pages, sweat from his hands having seeped into the pages, and most of all the age of the ink as tested against other known artifacts of the age to determine within a few years when the ink touched the page and dried.
The more you look at the book, the more you see beyond the cover, and into the lies beneath. Anyone who would accept the book at face value as being authentic is more a fool then the ones who created this hoax in the first place. If you can not see past the facade then you are doomed to fall prey to the hoaxer.
Common sense approach |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
But Dawn,
You've missed Steve's best points.
What about the writer knowing about Mary's heart being missing? I mean, sure, the diary has Maybrick regretting that he didn't take any of Mary away with him from the scene, but hey, it also includes the two words "no" and "heart," right next to each other, so that's proof right there.
And the diary writer known about the "tin match box empty" --the very same thing, in the very same odd syntax that the police listed on their unpublished crime report! I mean sure, that report was published in 1988 and that very phrase was reproduced exactly in several Ripper books after 1988, but who could have guessed that the real Ripper knew what the police report listed in the exact way it listed it? Not only does this suggest that the diary is real (and not written by someone who saw the phrase in one of those Ripper books that contained it after 1988, definitely not that), but it also allows us to conclude that either Maybrick had an "in" at the police station or he himself was writing police reports about his own crimes. Who could have possibly known that?
And what else could the phrase "Time reveals all" possibly mean as a family motto? Surely it can't just be a generic cliche used as part of an old crest. It must have some specific meaning related to murder, right? That's what mottoes do. They mean things. So that's pretty compelling evidence that Maybrick was the Ripper.
And if you go over to another thread you'll see there are at least three Ripper letters where Maybrick plays with is name and initials, including one where he invokes the pain in his "ARM" and one where he offer one initial right-side up and one initial upside down (JW). Who else could have come up with such a thing? And these letters are real -- they're on file! They can be found in Stewart Evans' book on the letters. So even Stewart's book carries proof of Maybrick's guilt.
And, after all, how many times is the word "MAY" likely to turn up in English prose anyway? Especially in something about the Ripper case, which was hardly ever written about at the time. Well, it was written about quite a lot really, but still, the appearance of MAY -- the very same three letters that are in MAYbrick's name? I mean, come on.
And most importantly, as Steve says, all the tests done on the watch and the diary say they were created in the 19th century! It makes you wonder why people are arguing about them so much. I know I wonder that. I guess some people are just stubborn and will even deny scientific truth.
And remember, James Maybrick's wife cheated on him. So why would anyone be surprised if his response was to travel to a different city and start killing and butchering prostitutes? I mean, it only makes sense. Surely, we've all read Othello. Ok, that's a bad example, 'cause she doens't really cheat and he kills her, not strange women walking the streets of another town. But still, we've all heard of stuff like this before, so that's evidence right there, too.
And Kate's face, and those initials so clearly written on blood on the walls that everyone who sees the picture (and who has seen it for over hundred years) all recognize the truth. Who else would be writing FM on the wall? (Okay, maybe a disc-jockey, or a Steely Dan fan, but that would be ahistorical, and the diary corresponds quite exactly to the historical record, except when it doesn't, and then it goes even further and rewrites history for us, correcting it, and thereby becoming an even more convincing document.)
Steve's points are all excellent ones that can't be denied. You can argue that the diary doesn't "match" history all you want. But that's just because history is wrong. And, after all, only the real killer (i.e. the diarist) would have known that.
So try not to be so closed-minded Dawn and you'll see the truth. Time really is revealing all -- it may be a bit illogical, irrational even, and certainly very, very complicated; but it's being revealed nonetheless. And many people are much the happier for it.
Join us, (you know you want to),
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 918
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
Hi Dawn,
Can you name a single person who accepted the diary at face value as genuine?
I could name several who will never even consider the diary could have been completed before 1989, no matter how many more ink tests might be considered worth trying in the future if someone is willing to fund them in support of their beliefs.
DNA is no earthly good since any number of people have now left theirs on the diary, and how would you identify if any of it was either Maybrick's or the ripper's? Of course, using John's current comical Cornwellian logic and wishful thinking, it would simply show beyond doubt that Robert Smith must be Jack the Ripper.
Love,
Caz |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
I didn't say that. Caroline Morris did.
But she's right, Dawn. There are people here who simply will not change their mind, no matter what scientific tests aren't done.
On the side of the angels,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on March 24, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 923
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 8:32 am: | |
John, could you back off me now please?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Caz,
No problem. The rest of my posts (like most of my longer recent ones) will seek to address only the persuasive logic of specific arguments and positions.
Just one of the gang,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on March 25, 2004) |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 937
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
John,
Are you Peter Wood in disguise ?
Monty...who is back on the Maybrick boards...watching, waiting and preparing to pounce !
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 685
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
Hi, Monty
Now, now, tut, tut, Monty. You know that Peter Wood is an ex-policeman. You don't think those size eighteen copper's boots that John is wearing are an indication, do you?  
All the best
Chris |
Steve
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 7:10 pm: | |
Hi peeps, is it true Holywood are going to be making a Ripper film with Maybrick as the ripper? I've heard it's going to be directed by William Friedkin, him who did the Exorcist. That could be quite a film if done properly. Hopefully there'll be no mention of the Queens doctor this time. (Yawn)
Do any of you lads in the states know more about this? I was just thinking Bernard Hill could play the perfect James Maybrick. If any of you have ever seen "boys from the black stuff" he played the part of a scouse nutter Yosser Hughes brilliantly. He's about the right age now too. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 686
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 1:46 pm: | |
Hi, Steve
I may be mistaken but I believe the news that William Friedkin is going to make a Maybrick Ripper movie is old "news" from the 1990's and that a project involving Friedkin never came to fruition.
A more recent scoop has been that screenwriter Bruce Robinson ("Withnail and I") was writing a screenplay called "Battlecrease" with Michael Maybrick as the Ripper, or else he is writing a book with Michael seemingly in the bloody mantle. You might check out this thread which has a Daily Express article from March 24, 2003 on Robinson "Robinson's Book to Unveil Ripper At Last".
I believe Caz, who knows everything  might be able to enlighten us further about the status of Bruce's project, whatever it is.
All the best
Chris George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 5:42 am: | |
If ,as widely suspected,the diary is a modern hoax,it might be an idea to question how the hoax was accomplished and by whom.That is not to say we set out to discover names,but to assess as far as possible how many and of what occupations the participants likely were.How did they accomplish the task?.
We can be sure that the original idea came to a single individual in the not too distant past.We can also be sure that that individual was aware of the Whitechapel murders,and knew that the killer had never been identified.It must also have been apparent to that person,that only a confession would suffice to convince the multitude of people searching for a conclusive ending,that the killer had indeed been found.
Also bear in mind that the origin of the document in it,s present form,begins with it being in the possession of Mike Barrett in the early 1990,s,but could that individual have conceived and carried out such an idea on his own.
Anyway,back to the person with the idea.What kind of a person might this be.Because the evidence is in a litery form,it might be that he was a person well versed in that field,or,failing that, he coopted a person of such talent.If the latter,one might suspect the originator would first look among friends.One thing is certain,either the originator of the hoax,or one of the first co-opted,was a gifted writer.It narrows the field.
My opinions of course,and be free to disagree,but I feel a continuance of the idea I have put forward could bear interesting results.
If it is felt that such questions have already been asked and answered,it would do no harm to cover old ground.Many new posters might add interesting information. |
Steve
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
Ahwell. Thanks for the info Chris. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 948
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Hi Harry,
A very good post, if I may say so.
I really don't have that much idea how 'widely' the diary is suspected to be a modern hoax these days. How long is a piece of string? The pool is so very tiny here on these boards, it's almost impossible to tell how representative it is of the waters outside.
It's possible that most well-informed diary watchers outside our little community are not just suspicious, but are absolutely convinced the diary and watch are the result of two modern hoax conspiracies.
There may even be a small, and perhaps growing number of Liverpudlians who know the truth, and could give us the goods, but are still unaccountably worried about coming forward, or don't realise just how much their stories could be worth if they did.
I always thought that if the diary creator was in a position to come forward and claim it as their work, he (or she) would already be known for their writing, or their larks, in some small corner of the known ripper world.
But the watch scratches provide the biggest enigma of all. How could they have been planned, made and doctored, all in the month of May, 1993, by either of the Johnson brothers? Not one person has yet addressed this question with anything like the seriousness it screams out for and deserves, in an attempt to explain how a 1993 hoax is even viable, let alone managed to produce the two forensic reports that are not going to be spirited away just because a few don't like what they reveal.
I suspect it may eventually be widely acknowledged that the watch scratches could not have been faked in 1993. These things take time to filter through, but the filtering process can't be held back indefinitely.
The watch is here to stay, and even the most academic arguments won't help get rid of it now, so any questions about the person who hoaxed the diary in recent times may not apply after all.
Love,
Caz
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:21 pm: | |
"The watch is here to stay."
I wonder, just what would "getting rid of it" mean?
The posts currently on the watch board make it quite clear that while everyone agrees that the watch exists, that's about all they agree on. There is certainly no agreement about when the confession scratched on it might or might not have been faked or about what the "reports" do or do not tell us about that question. And since those reports remain unavailable to the general public, the invocation of a "wide acknowledgement" which will arrive "eventually" seems to be the last gasp of a discussion wherein one has simply run out of available arguments, academic or otherwise. It's now all been reduced to... "You'll see, I know, really, I do, it'll happen eventually, you'll see, honest."
Oh yes, on just such arguments is the truth always founded, right?
And yes, by all means let's not have any "academic" arguments. Or rational ones, or logical ones either. They'll only slow us down. Much better when faced with "academic" questions -- like how in the world a forger before the mid-1980s could know about the tin match box or why a forger before the 50's would have excluded Smith and Tabram or how a forger before 1975 would have known to refer to the initials in the Kelly photo (or any of the handwriting problems or the overlapping lines in Ryan's modern book or the simultaneous ahistorical scenes in the diary and the TV miniseries) or any of that other stuff in the diary, including the stuff that one still unchallenged and fully qualified expert has said make an old forgery impossible -- much better when faced with all of that "academic" stuff, simply to say "got me, but it must have happened, since the watch is still here."
Yes. That's convincing.
You ask interesting questions, Harry.
But remember, the watch and the diary are still here. That must mean something.
Indeed, it does.
It means it's always possible in this very small pool to keep hope alive.
Rock on,
--John
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 4:35 am: | |
Caz,
It doesn,t really follow that all events concerning the watch must have taken place in the month of May 1993,no more than that the diary must be a hoax product of 1991,the year it came to light.
One might reasonably expect that the watch is a secondry consideration,designed to convince those sceptics who find the diary unconvincing.
What the watch does is broaden the number of personel who were involved in the scheme.
There has to be a common denominator between the known players,and the as yet unknown.You can argue all you like about the expert opinions,what this test does or doesn,t prove,in the end,as John Omlor has stated,it is the unmasking of the personel involved that is most likely to provide answers.
Mike Barret is the obvious place to start.He is still alive.What is needed is an inducement to make him talk.The truth may be discerned among the lies.
Someone had an idea of a hoax concerning the Whitechapel murders.Barret has not up to now provided the name of that person.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 967
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
Hi Harry,
So you think it's possible that the diary and watch is a joint modern hoax conspiracy? I suppose in theory the Johnsons could have been in with the Barretts in a scheme to make the diary look more convincing, but I don't think there is any evidence pointing that way. Robbie Johnson seemed pretty convinced that Albert had bought the real deal while Mike had been sold a pup, but that may have been an odd kind of double bluff I suppose. The watch appears to rely on the diary not being dismissed as a fake, so it makes no sense for Robbie to have really wanted his scepticism taken seriously if he was in on a joint hoax.
As for Mike, he appears not to know who Kane is, but he may be very quick at hiding any reaction or body language that could give away the slightest flicker of recognition. Other than that, we have no other names of possible hoaxers to tempt him with, and what sort of inducement did you have in mind, that couldn't be interpreted as an attempt to get him to tell lies?
Love,
Caz |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 274
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
Caz writes,
"Robbie Johnson seemed pretty convinced..."
and
"As for Mike, he appears not to know..."
And this is why at some point we need to test and retest everything that moves or doesn't move, thoroughly and properly. Because we can hang around here for many years arguing what one person "seems" to know and what another "appears" not to know. But as long as that's our dominant grammar, this will just be a sport, a bit of daily mental exercise, exclusively repetitious and strictly for its own sake.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
Enjoying it anyway,
--John (who knows not 'seems')
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 4:02 am: | |
Not neccessary that all concerned had to know everyone else,just the principal organiser/s.
Now here are a couple of items I would like answered.Why did Barrett pick on a London publisher,how did he come to choose that particular one,and what initial conversation took place.Why did the London representative choose a little known person whose admitted knowledge of criminal matters,and Ripper literature,being minimal in the extreme,to be present at the first meeting with Barrett.
Too many odd occurances,never explained,seem to dog the characters concerned,and the diary in general."I got it off a fela in a pub".How original."Well the fela's dead".How conveniant."Took us eleven days to find the information needed ,and compile the diary".How impossible.
Still,as you say,everthing is possible. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 971
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
Hi Harry,
Good luck with your questions. Why don't you try to get it from the horses' mouths, if you are interested in getting answers you can work with?
Give 'em all a lump of sugar and they may let you jump on their backs and take you to Answer Heaven.
Wait until it's too late and all you'll be doing is flogging dead horses who are already there by themselves.
Which may of course happen anyway.
Caz-flogging days are over. I'll leave you all to flog someone else or yourselves.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 276
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 12:39 pm: | |
Harry,
Caz might be leaving, but your questions will remain here, unanswered I'm afraid.
They join a long list.
But as they properly suggest, the provenance for this document is as bad as it can possibly be. And, as you know, the handwriting doesn't in any way match the supposed author's. And the book is full of ahistorical errors. And there are textual references to material unavailable to the general public before modern times. And you know the rest.
Whether Caz is here or not, the diary is still a fake and the hunt for the Ripper(s) remains.
The rest is just entertaining gossip and an unsolved hoax.
All the best,
--John |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 4:44 am: | |
Caz,
There is no such thing as luck.There is either good judgement or bad judgement.
I think in time a big enough lump of sugar will tempt one horse to open his mouth wide.All it needs is a bit of patience.
In the meantime,put your hands together and repeat after me,"I believe in-----".
As John rightly says,it's entertaining. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
