|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Lee McLoughlin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 54
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 11:04 am: | 
|
This is not a problem phrase as it doesn't appear in the diary. However the fact that it doesn't appear is a major problem.
If we are to believe that the author lived in Middlesex Street around the time of the murders, as suggested by the diary, he would have been caught up in the hysteria regarding Leather Apron.
And yet Leather Apron doesn't get one mention.
mmmmm |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1556
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Hi Lee,
Details about Leather Apron started appearing in the papers from September 4. Annie was killed four days later on September 8, and the finding of the leather apron in the yard where she was killed produced, according to the JtR A-Z:
a frenzy of anger against the unknown murderer, which took the form of active anti-Semitism. Jews were beaten up on the streets by men who asserted that 'No Englishman would commit such murders'.
The newspaper scare came to an end on Monday September 10, following the arrest of John Pizer, who was conclusively cleared of Polly's murder. After this, police reports referred to him as 'Leather Apron, an early suspect'. But evidence in the press strongly suggests that the public still believed a man nicknamed 'Leather Apron' was the murderer.
Now compare all the above with an entry in the diary a page and a half after first mentioning Chapman's murder, and two pages before mentioning the double event:
I had to laugh, they have me down as left handed, a Doctor, a slaughterman and a Jew. Very well, if they are to insist that I am a Jew then a Jew I shall be. Why not let the Jews suffer? I have never taken to them, far too many of them on the Exchange for my liking.
Unless you can show me otherwise, I'd say it's pretty clear the diary author is referring to the whole Leather Apron scare here. And, in character for Sir Jim, he's not thinking about any individual but himself as he writes this part. He tends to tar all 'whores' with one brush and all Jews with another; hence their identities - names or nicknames - don't seem to figure - at least not at this stage.
Polly, Annie, Liz and Kate don't get one mention by name either, so why is it a 'major problem' for you that Leather Apron gets the same brush-off treatment?
You know, there's more - or less in some cases - in the diary than you appear to have realised. For example, if you read closely, you will find that the two so-called Manchester murders aren't quite what they appear; the diarist never mentions initials (FM or otherwise) on the wall behind Mary's body on the bed; and the claim that the diarist must have read the 'little whores' poem, in order to write what he wrote, is about as shaky IMHO as the claim that the diarist could not possibly have read the previous line of the Crashaw poem. (Don't get me started....)
But I should think one major problem would be if someone could prove beyond doubt that Liz wasn't murdered by Jack, but by a second knife-wielding prostitute killer who was on the Whitechapel streets that night. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
Lee McLoughlin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 55
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
What I meant by the lack of "Leather Apron" is the lack of those words. If the author had lived around Whitechapel he would have heard many people using thet phrase "leather apron". He uses Abberline, but why doesn't he mention "leather appron" when everyone at that time was talking about him?
The quoute you used does not mention "leather Appron" so we can't assume that he was talking about him.
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 88
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Hi Lee.
I've got to say I'm with Caz on this one. The diary certainly does seem to have picked up on the whole Pizer episode.
Is it a worry to you that a hoaxer doesn't mention Leather apron by name, or that Maybrick doesn't mention him? Does the absence of a specific mention make the diary more likely to have been written by the former than the latter?
Depends on your overall view of what the diary is I suppose.
regards
Paul |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1561
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 6:13 am: |
|
Hi Lee,
...if they are to insist that I am a Jew then a Jew I shall be.
You say we can't assume that the diarist was talking about Leather Apron here?
While I agree that one should always assume as little as possible, I just wonder if you have any better ideas about what he could have meant, if this wasn't a reference to the Leather Apron scare?
Sometimes less is more. The question is, how conscious was the author of this as he was writing?
Love,
Caz
X |
Lee McLoughlin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 56
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
Hello Caz,
I believe tha the diary is an old forgery. By the time the diary was wrote it was known that "leather Apron" was not the killer so the forger never mentioned him. I belive that the taunts about Jews come from the "Dear Boss" letter which was still considered by many people as the work of JTR when the diary was wrote. I think it is also very obvious that the diary author is hinting that he wrote the Dear Boss letter, which is almost certinly not true.
This is why I think the lack of "leather apron" in the diary is suspect. If the diary was wrote by someone living the day to day routine of life in Whitechapel 1888 he would, in my opinion, mentioned "leather apron" even in a fleeting taunting moment.
Have a nice weekend,
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Lonely Guy
Police Constable
Username: Lonelyguy
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
A question - where does the entry in the diary fit in relation to the "The juwes are not..." inscription? Could this be what the diarist is referring to when saying that he will be a Jew?
IMHO If the diary entry comes BEFORE the writing on the wall it is a strong plus in favour of it (the diary) being genuine: That is, assuming that the writing was penned by JtR. If it comes AFTER it could well explain why the diarist is referring to jews in general as opposed to a jew in particular and would go some way to answering Lee's question as to why Leather Apron was not specifically named. I mean, who knows what, (oops almost said Maybrick then ha ha), the diarist was thinking when he wrote it. If he was thinking about the writing on the wall (I love my little jokes) rather than the hue and cry about leather Apron it would not even occur to him to mention him by name at all.
catch me if you can
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 93
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:44 am: |
|
Hi Lonely,
You can use the M word here as much as you like!
Hi Lee,
The number of "old hoax", (we mustn't say forgery!), opinions seems to be growing daily.
Go for it I say.
I've often pondered in the past at the lack of a mention of Lusk vis a vis the Lusk/kidney episode.
Is it missing because the diary is a fake/hoax, or is it missing because Maybrick was JTR as well as the diarist, the Lusk letter was a hoax, and Maybrick of course knew it?
When the diary contains things that some people think shouldn't be there it gets negatively criticised by some and quite the opposite by others. When the diary has omissions like those mentioned the same applies.
I think it can be dangerous, and highly illogical to assume either way on the basis of what one individual thinks should or should not have been included.
I don't think that there has ever been written the definitive "Serial killers guide to good diary keeping", and unless it has, we are all on shaky ground with assumptions like that.
have a great weekend one and all,
Regards
Paul |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1566
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 4:31 am: |
|
Hi Lee,
Well the Dear Boss letter mentions Leather Apron by name, so your argument that the taunts about Jews in the diary come from this letter kind of proves my point, which was that the diarist did have Leather Apron in mind when writing those taunts!
Hi Lonely,
You'll never be lonely for long on a diary thread.
In the diary, after the Chapman murder, and before ...if they are to insist that I am a Jew then a Jew I shall be, we get:
I was vexed with myself when I realised I had forgotten the chalk. (Sounds like he was planning to write something on the fence by Annie's body.)
And: Next time I will remember the chalk and write my funny little rhyme.
Then after the Jewish references, when writing about the double event:
I wonder if they enjoyed my funny Jewish joke? Curse my bad luck had no time to write a funny little rhyme.
It's like the 'Sir Jim' of the diary wanted to keep the public focused on the idea of a Jewish killer after Pizer was cleared.
Hi Paul,
I totally agree - everyone will have their own unique view of what they'd expect to see, or not see, and how they would have written it to make it look 'right'; and it would still end up looking 'wrong' to most of us.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 797
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
Hi Lee
I don't think any significance can be read into whether or not the diarist comments on any particular item. As it happens, one of the main arguments of the anti-diary camp tends to be that the diary contains exactly what was known about the murders at the end of the 1980's with nothing added and nothing taken away.
But in fact if something of this nature were missed out of the diary, that would be more in favour of the pro-diary camp than the anti-diary one in my opinion. If a hoaxer left something out of the diary, that means he made a mistake, whereas if the genuine Maybrick left something out, all it means is that it didn't interest him.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 3:31 pm: |
|
'diarist', 'anti-diary camp', 'pro-diary camp' - What??? A waste of space, there's no question that it's a piece of modern tat. |
Lonely Guy
Police Constable
Username: Lonelyguy
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 2:34 am: |
|
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. There are a lot of people (highly informed people) who have an alternate opinion.
I think it is important that every opinion is regarded and investigated. That way the facts can speak rather than mere hunches.
catch me if you can
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 216
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Who are the "highly informed people" who hold this opinion, LG, specifically... and what is that opinion, precisely?
We cannot regard and investigate what you say without that information. So let the facts speak please, rather than my "hunch" about what you are saying.
Phil |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1362
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Hi Caz
I think Lee actually has a point. If Maybrick, as Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman would have us believe, actually wrote the Diary at the time, he probably would have mentioned Leather Apron. And he probably wouldn't have given such prominence to Abberline as does the Diarist, who was almost undoubtedly writing long after Maybrick was dead.
The Diary writer, skating blithely over the facts of the case, ignores the fact that the Goulston Street graffito is not a "funny little rhyme" and nor was there ever such a funny little rhyme chalked on a wall. Goulston was, he indicates, the "funny Jewish joke" that even today students of the case find hard to understand, another instance of the Diarist showing a shallow grasp of the case.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Lonely Guy
Police Constable
Username: Lonelyguy
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 3:05 am: |
|
Highly informed people? - well me for one, also Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison, Paul Begg, Colin Wilson, Martin Fido, My Auntie Fanny, Mark Franzael, the bloke who works at the chip shop, Uncle Tom Cobbley, Hannah Koren, a certain assistant commissioner not too far from here, etc etc etc. and the opinion --- that the diary is probably genuine - notice I do no say definitely genuine, I still have an open mind and examine facts as they come to light.
catch me if you can
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 218
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
What do you mean by genuine?
A genuine book written in later?
Actually Maybrick's genuine thoughts and work?
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1576
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
Hi Chris G,
Sorry, I don't get this at all.
You wrote:
If Maybrick...actually wrote the Diary...he probably would have mentioned Leather Apron. And he probably wouldn't have given such prominence to Abberline as does the Diarist, who was almost undoubtedly writing long after Maybrick was dead.
Once you have decided that the diarist was 'almost undoubtedly' writing long after Maybrick (and the ripper) was dead, there hardly seems much point trying to argue the little things, like whether a hoaxer should have - because the real killer would have - given Leather Apron the time of day in his diary.
I'm sorry, but I just don't know how anyone can seriously claim to be in a position to judge what the real ripper would or would not have chosen to write about. He, unlike a hoaxer, would have felt no restrictions whatsoever. If he had wanted to imagine Abberline as his arch enemy, that would have been his prerogative; ditto if he wanted to record his thoughts about a Jew being suspected, without mentioning Leather Apron by name.
The Diary writer...ignores the fact that the Goulston Street graffito is not a "funny little rhyme" and nor was there ever such a funny little rhyme chalked on a wall.
What do you mean 'ignores the fact'? No he doesn't - as you yourself go on to say, he indicates it was his idea of a "funny Jewish joke".
He actually writes:
I wonder if they enjoyed my funny Jewish joke? Curse my bad luck had no time to write a funny little rhyme.
He acknowledges that the message wasn't a funny little rhyme, so I don't know what you mean about this 'showing a shallow grasp of the case'.
Only the author of the message knew for sure what was meant by it. A private joke is as good a guess as anyone else has come up with over the years, and if the real ripper had chalked the message and kept a diary, he could easily have thought of it - with the apron piece - as his little joke at the Jews' expense.
Why on earth not?
There seems to be a tendency to leap on the tiniest thing as a problem for a hoaxer (which would not necessarily be a problem at all had the killer himself written it), which baffles me if you believe there are more than enough major blunders to support your 'almost undoubtedly' modern view.
Hi Phil,
I consider myself reasonably well informed regarding all things diary and watch, and I am becoming more and more doubtful that either will ever be proven to be a modern hoax.
Keith Skinner is arguably the most highly informed diary investigator on the planet, and after nearly 13 years he remains certain that the diary is not a recent document.
When you manage to find someone better informed about the diary than Keith, who can provide solid evidence that the diary is in fact 'a piece of modern tat', perhaps you will let us all know.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4286
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 7:55 am: |
|
Without getting into the Diary pros and cons, I suggest it's possible to see a joke in the last word of the message. "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for..." What? Bloody murder? Disembowelment? Ripping up women?
Well actually - er- nothing.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 219
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 7:56 am: |
|
Caz
With all due respect, why do you ALWAYS interpret questioning as attack and react so defensively.
I honestly have no axe to grind in regard to the Diary - I feel instinctively that the likelihood of its being genuine is very small - but I do not dismiss it as a fraud (though interestingly proving its genuineness - which is where the onus lies - seems inordinately difficult). I simply ignore it, as unsubstantiated material, for the moment.
When I asked LG who he meant by highly informed people, I was simply asking for specifics - he cited no one, so he could have meant anyone or no one. Interestingly he doesn't mention Keith Skinner, whom you do.
But I get a facetious answer from LG, including "My Auntie Fanny... the bloke who works at the chip shop, Uncle Tom Cobbley...". Why?
What is wrong with asking for specifics.
Equally, "genuine" can mean different things at different times or to different people. So I asked what he meant.
I have great respect for Skinner, Fido, Begg etc, but as I recall (perhaps mistakenly) Fido and Begg were two of the experts who signed up with the Diary even before it had been seen, and signed a "gagging agreement" as part of the price. I am afraid that that, to my mind, and I suspect in both legal and academic terms, rather taints theirs as independent views.
Finally, when you write: ...I am becoming more and more doubtful that either will ever be proven to be a modern hoax."
and
... When you manage to find someone better informed about the diary than Keith, who can provide solid evidence that the diary is in fact 'a piece of modern tat', perhaps you will let us all know.
I assume you realise that all custom, logic and reason places the responsibility for proof on those who wish to demonstrate something, NOT on those who remain sceptical. I have to do nothing - all the work rests with you and those who think like you.
Good luck,
Phil
|
Lee McLoughlin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 57
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 7:59 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I am intrested in your quote "Keith Skinner is arguably the most highly informed diary investigator on the planet, and after nearly 13 years he remains certain that the diary is not a recent document."
I am a believer of the old hoax theory wrote around the early 1900's to the end of the 1950's. I suspect that someone trying to clear Florence Maybrick's name wrote it or it was wrote by Dr Dutton or an assistant. (has Dutton's handwriting been checked?) Is Keith Skinner in the view that the diary is an old hoax?
Secondly, did the full wording of the Gaulston Street grafiti appear in any daily papers in the aftermath of the "double event"? If not when did it become public knowledge?
Best Wishes,
Lee
(Message edited by lee on March 22, 2005) |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1366
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Hi Caz
The funny Jewish joke was so funny that no one gets it... do you get it?
And again I think there is room to think that what is in the Diary and what is not does give us some idea of when the thing might have been written. Someone writing it actually when the murders occurred probably would have mentioned Leather Apron, as the Dear Boss writer did but that the Diarist did not. Somebody writing in 1988-1993 might also think the Liverpool Poste House was an 1888 ale house.
You say also, "If he had wanted to imagine Abberline as his arch enemy, that would have been his prerogative. . ." Yes, Caz, but as we have discussed before here, it would not have been as obvious to a non-Scotland Yard official writing in 1888 that Abberline had charge of the case, since the newspaper reports mentioned various police officers as having a hand in the investigation. Only with the 1988 Michael Caine film was Abberline given great prominence and the Ripper versus Abberline duel highlighted, so there is an inference that the Diarist might have been influenced by that modern view of who was in charge.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Hi Lee
The wording of the Goulston Street graffito was published in the newspapers at the time of the inquest on Catherine Eddowes, e.g., see Daily Telegraph of 4 October 1888.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 11:39 pm: |
|
Hi Phil Hill
You wrote:
I have great respect for Skinner, Fido, Begg etc, but as I recall (perhaps mistakenly) Fido and Begg were two of the experts who signed up with the Diary even before it had been seen, and signed a "gagging agreement" as part of the price. I am afraid that that, to my mind, and I suspect in both legal and academic terms, rather taints theirs as independent views.
In fact, Begg, Skinner, and Fido signed not a "gagging agreement" as you put it but a standard non-disclosure agreement, and they did not, as you also seem to imply, pay any "price" for their silence since they were free to speak out against the Diary thereafter, which all three of them, have, to say that the artifact is, in their opinion, a forgery.
Let me expand--
Many businesses, including software developers and publishers, use embargos and non-disclosure agreements to protect their "product" while in development or prior to release. Persons in the publishing industry, both authors and journalists, of course, are very familiar with embargos. You might think of them as "gagging agreements" if you wish, but in fact they are extremely common and legitimate ways of protecting an investment in a product while it is in development.
In this case, Robert Smith, the publisher of the diary, wanted expert opinion on the Ripper case and came to three well known authorities on the case, Keith Skinner, Martin Fido, and Paul Begg, to obtain their opinion on the Ripper content of the diary. At the same time, to protect his investment from pre-publication discussion, he asked them to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which they did, and this agreement remained in force until publication. Thereafter, they were at liberty to say whatever they liked about the Diary. This then was not a "price" they paid, simply an ordinary business practice, and it neither legally nor academically tainted their views on the Maybrick Diary.
Martin, Keith, and Paul examined the Diary and gave their opinion in a written report--each of them stating then, as they have stated many times since, that in their view that the so-called "Maybrick Diary" is a forgery. What they remain uncertain about is who forged it and, crucially, when (although "when" does not necessarily mean that they think it dates from very long ago).
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 224
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 1:52 am: |
|
Thank you for the very full "defensive line" on the situation Chris.
I'm afraid their involvement - whether standard practice or not - has since made me question their judgement. They were, in one way or another a party to those owning the Diary and were unable to speak out. Along with many other's no doubt, I bought the Diary (1st edition) on publication - had we had these people demanding access without "gagging" - I and others might have saved our money. To me they lost their detachment and independence. Sorry, but that's the way i see it.
Nothing you have said - despite all the detail and special pleading/changed words - seems to change an iota of what I originally wrote.
I respect your view nonetheless, and what I have written expresses only my personal perception.
Phil |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
Hi Phil
I respect your point of view. However, I do think you are greatly simplifying the situation and putting Begg et al. in a bad light as a result. There was a lot of controversy about the publication of Shirley Harrison's book at the time it was published in 1993. As you probably know, Time-Warner withdrew from publication of the Diary on the advice of documents expert Kenneth W. Rendell and investigator Joe Nickell, sensing that the Diary manuscript was a hoax. Robert Smith was even up front enough to publish contrary opinions on the manuscript with Shirley Harrison's text. So it wasn't as if there were no red flags about the Diary at the time it appeared. Anyone who bought the book on the Diary by Shirley Harrison should have known that this was a controversial and debated document and that it was by no means clear that James Maybrick wrote the document and nor that Maybrick was the Ripper.
Best regards
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 228
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
I certainly was under no-illusions. But it was very disappointing at the time that writers who appeared to be taking Ripper-studies to new levels of reputability and respect, got on the band-wagon so quickly.
The obvious assumption (perhaps incorrect, of course) was that commercialism spoke. They needed an early insight/inside track for their own works, and couldn't wait. I don't know what financial arrangements might have been involved - again perhaps none.
But it all left a bad taste.
Think of the power it would have had if they had awaited publication, then issued stinging reviews expressing views demonstrably independent and uncontaminated in any way by a connection with the Diary publishers.
Phil |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Hi Phil
I think in some ways you overestimate the stature of Ripperologists while at the same time you underestimate the role of the media and publishing. Frankly, Phil, as well known as they are in this field of Ripperology, Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, and Martin Fido do not have the clout, say, of a Patricia Cornwell or a Tom Clancy, so they don't have the power to stop the presses and call news conferences to get their views across as you seem to imply they do. The point is that, as I stated in my last post in this thread, the word was already out that the Maybrick Diary was not what it purported to be, and these doubts had been expressed in the media. Indeed, Begg et al. added their voices of skepticism to those who doubted the Diary was the real thing. In the meanwhile, however, those three experts were working authors and scholars, so they had the right to offer their opinions of the Diary to Robert Smith, the publisher, as he had solicited from them, and this, as has been explained to you, involved a non-disclosure agreement, standard in the publishing industry.
At any rate, Phil, I do thank you for expressing your views, and I have given you my view of the situation. Let this be the end of our dialogue on this topic. I look forward to bantering with you on other subjects related to the case. 
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by ChrisG on March 23, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 232
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Battles long over really, Chris. Nice to chat to you too.
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:51 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
I don't consider that I reacted too defensively to your question to Lonely Guy. You asked:
Who are the "highly informed people" who hold this opinion, LG, specifically... and what is that opinion, precisely?
And I, of course, supplied the one obvious answer: Keith Skinner - there is arguably no one more highly informed, yet he is of the opinion, after 13 years spent investigating the document, that it wasn't created in recent times.
If someone better informed has evidence that it was, they have yet to come forward with it. Do you honestly think they would hold on to such evidence, on the basis that the onus would not be on them to provide it and prove Keith wrong? I prefer to live in the real world. If anyone found proof they would be straining at the leash to get it out in the open.
I made no claims about the diary's age or origins myself - if I ever do, feel free to ignore them unless I provide convincing evidence. I simply made a prediction that no one will prove it was written in the late 20th century. That prediction can hang around indefinitely as far as I'm concerned - you are free to disagree with it, and predict that proof will come, if you think it will, but that's about it I'm afraid.
And I'm certainly not going to speak for Lonely Guy. If you have a problem with what he wrote, tell him, not me.
Hi Lee,
My understanding is that Keith's opinion is that the diary is an old document, not in Maybrick's authenticated handwriting. He doesn't claim to know when or why it was written, but his investigations continue.
Hi Chris G,
Look, the diarist is supposed to be thinking like a serial killer, with all the characteristics of a man living in a fantasy world. He looks on the writing on the wall as his 'funny Jewish joke' and wonders, tongue-in-cheek, if they 'enjoyed' it. He's talking about a trivial incident connected with another extremely vicious attack.
The whole thing - choosing to chalk something on that wall, bringing in the Jews, and dropping the apron piece beneath - was supposed to be a joke to him, in that he was having a laugh at the expense of the Jews and the authorities; I don't see why the message had to be a recognisable rib-tickler in its own right in order to make sense of the diarist's thoughts here. In fact, I don't think that was the intention at all.
The real author of the message either assumed, mistakenly, that its meaning would be blindingly obvious to anyone who came across it, or his intention was to make a guessing game of it, and cause confusion. Either way, he did it to provoke some sort of reaction, and the diarist doesn't overstep the mark IMHO by chuckling to himself as he imagines they would find it anything but a joke, and certainly wouldn't be enjoying it.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 235
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
You try hard, Caz. Shame it's all so unconvincing.
Phil |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
Hi Caz
Of course your post gives me real fits. The Diarist is trying very hard to emulate the style of the Dear Boss letter writer and to perpetuate the impression that "Jack" is a prankster and joker. But it doesn't quite come off, because that aspect of the Diary and so much else is obviously derivative of the Ripper legend and mocked up to appear the real thing by someone who has only read about the case.
For example, what could be more contrived than to write 63 pages and never mention the name "Jack the Ripper" but then to sign the document "Yours truly, Jack the Ripper"?
That absence of mention of the famous nom de plume on all pages except the last one makes for a blatant absence, as does the lack of mention of Leather Apron and the equally patent existence of numerous mentions of Abberline and the writer's supposed duel with the little man which is also anachronistic for someone supposedly writing in 1888.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 94
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
Hello Phil
Why is Caroline's argument so unconvincing to you? Assuming the diary comments actually do refer to Goulston Street, which of course they may not, what's the problem?
The diary seems to only too often get unjustified flak from those who really have a problem with other peoples opinions as to what it means, rather than what it actually says, (or doesn't say as the case may be).
Hello Lee
An "old hoax" is certainly an attractive proposition to me as to the provenance of the diary. It fits the available facts much, much better than trying to work up an even faintly believable scenario to explain how Barrett or a contemporary did it.
I've got another question though. Different people will have different ideas as to what does or does not constitute a hoax in the case of the diary, (and watch!). It would be interesting to hear others views on this, particularly as good natured discussion seems to have (almost) broken out on the Maybrick topics again. I hope it lasts, and thanks to all those responsible. Its been a pleasure to read most of the last weeks posts!
Here isn't the place to pose that question however, so I'll ask it properly on the appropriate thread.
regards to all,
Paul |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 238
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
paul: The Diary is unsubstantiated, and thus has absolutely no status as evidence of anything. It has no provenance and is surrounded by murky claims.
Until it is verified as authentic, any speculation about it has as much value as that about Lewis Caroll as JtR.
Caz stated above: I made no claims about the diary's age or origins myself ...
I admire her persistence and enthusiasm, but her arguments fail to convince me. Arguing about the internal meanings of a questionable artefact, is of as much value as making assumptions about a painting which claims to be by Rembrandt but was actually by Sickert. That is - none.
Phil |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 96
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Hi Phil
That's fine, and of course everyone here is entitled to their own view, but you're here discussing this valueless artifact too. Are you really just as interested as the rest of us in finding out what it really is, or is the above your last word on the subject?
If we eventually prove that the diary is old and not a modern fake will you be more or less interested. I will be for sure.
Sparing Caroline's blushes, (I hope), I have always found her open minded views on the diary and watch to be most refreshing. Speculation about the detail of the diary could in the end have immense value in identifying the author once and for all. It has every bit as much value, IMHO, as speculation about unsubstantiated claims surrounding all the other suspects discussed here.
Fortunately we don't have the Lewis Caroll diary yet.
After all, its all quite harmless isn't it?
Regards
Paul |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 242
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 1:31 am: |
|
I have no interest in the Diary whatsoever, Paul. And during my time on Casebook I have not indulged in discussion on its contents.
I am vaguely amused by - and thus I suppose logically, a little interested in the to me rather frantic efforts to prove it has value.
There is, for me a difference between suspets who have some basis for investigation either contemporary (Barnett, Hutchinson, Druitt etc) or on the basis of demonstrably authentic documents (Tumblety).
I'm afraid I waste no time on the candidates plucked from the air (Carroll, Lord Randolph Churchill etc). I count Maybrick - who without the Diary has no standing - as one of those.
Hope this explains my position,
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Hi Chris G,
I simply responded to your question:
The funny Jewish joke was so funny that no one gets it... do you get it?
I'm not sure why anyone would expect a real ripper diary not to be 'obviously derivative' of the ripper legend! What would you expect to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon?  What should we expect to see among the written confessions of a serial killer? What would we not expect to see and why? It's an impossible question for any of us to answer, isn't it?
Hi Phil,
I have no interest in the Diary whatsoever...
Funny, I have no interest whatsoever in breeding rare budgies, but then you wouldn't catch me on the 'Breed Your Own Rare Budgies for Fun or Profit' message boards telling the enthusiasts what I think is pointless for them to discuss.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 247
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
I can't be responsible for your foibles now can I, Caz?
I regard it as charitable work among the heathen!!
Phil |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2047
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Phil,
each to their own!
Jenni |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Hi Caz
You wrote--
"I'm not sure why anyone would expect a real ripper diary not to be 'obviously derivative' of the ripper legend!"
Caz, that really is an interesting statement. You really mean to say that you think that a diary written by the actual killer, the real Ripper, would be derivative of the Ripper legend. Are you serious?
I think quite the opposite. It was the killer in the first place who set the rules with his killing, and everything that has grown up since, the garbage surrounding the case, the myth as it were, the "Ripper" letters and everything else, that has given us a distorted view of the case.
If we were to find a diary actually written by the killer, I suspect it would be devoid of what we might expect. And this again is what is so startling about the Maybrick diary, that there is nothing really new in it, give or take the Crashaw quote, the possibility of a murder or two in Manchester, or, heaven help us, Mrs. Hammersmith.
Caz, that is really what is so dire and damning about the Diary -- what is in it is pretty much what we would expect from a diary supposedly written by "Jack the Ripper" or, should I say, what a forger would think should be in it. . . not what the actual killer would write.
Have a great weekend, Caz.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Just a short note to add two things -- you also wouldn't expect to find, in a diary written by the real killer, a line from a police report that the killer could not possibly have seen (or anyone in the general public until modern times apparently) and you wouldn't expect the real killer to name precisely the unique proper name, even with appropriate upper case, of a pub that wouldn't turn up in the right place until modern times.
Of course, you wouldn't expect a confession signed by someone but written in someone else's completely different handwriting either, but I guess all these things must have some sort of explanation...
Tracing the circle one more time as he heads off for the weekend,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on March 25, 2005) |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 98
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Fair enough Phil, each to their own I suppose.
But the Maybrick diary is now a Ripper artifact in its own right, like it or not, and a huge one at that. It’s caused more consternation than anything else connected with this case has in the last century and more. If you think that’s not worth investigation until such time as we all know the hows, whys and whens then it’s a shame. The hoaxed JTR letters, many of those dating after the event themselves, have managed to spawn a book all of their own, and a very good one at that
When the day comes that the author of the diary is discovered, and if it gets covered here first, then I bet you a pound to a penny that the Maybrick topic gets more hits that day than the entire casebook put together.
Regards,
Paul
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 788
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 8:29 pm: |
|
Hi Paul,
Boy, I really disagree with your statement (in a friendly way). There's a tremendous, yawning chasm between the diary and Ripper letters--the letters are artifacts because they illustrate a contemporary reaction to the crimes which shows us what a huge impact these murders had on the population.
On the other hand, just about everybody agrees that the diary dates from much later than 1888. How much later is the question these days, in my opinion.
The diary can't even get basic facts right--like when it has the Ripper claiming to have had sex with the victims when we know the Ripper didn't (unless he was politically correct and wore a condom).
When it comes to learning about the Ripper in 1888, the diary doesn't have any value at all. None. When is it ever cited as source material?
I bet you're right that the Maybrick threads probably get more hits than others. The reason is because they're very bitchy, and people get off on fighting.
Regards,
Dave |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 790
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 5:43 am: |
|
By the way Paul, I don't want to give the wrong impression--I think the diary is an interesting subject in and of itself. I just don't think it has anything to do with the historical record. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1398
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 6:13 am: |
|
Hi David
I agree that the Diary is interesting in and of itself, a mystery within a mystery, as it were. However, David, you are absolutely correct that we should not confuse it with the case of 1888. I have often said that the side alleys of Ripperology present us with a lot of interesting aspects that bear study all on their own. A case in point is the article in the new issue of Ripperologist by Stepan Poberowski about Rasputin and Pedachenko. In fact, Dr. Alexander Pedachenko might have been conjured up by William Le Queux as the supposed homicidal secret agent sent to London by the Okrana to kill prostitutes and so embarrass the British government, and Rasputin's connection, if any, to the case is tenuous. But all this adds to the lore and fascination of the Ripper case, even if it has bloody all to do with the actual murders of 1888!
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Lonely Guy
Police Constable
Username: Lonelyguy
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 8:10 am: |
|
Hi Dave
you said
On the other hand, just about everybody agrees that the diary dates
from much later than 1888. How much later is the question these days,
in my opinion.
I say... "huh, who says so????" Over a decade of trying to prove it was a fake and still it has not been proved so. it only took six weeks to prove the Hitler diary was a fake. How many more years of testing without such a conclusion before you admit that it just might be real?
catch me if you can
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2048
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 8:33 am: |
|
might be real.
might not be
Jenni |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 100
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
Well David, I sincerely hope the bitchiness is over now that you know who has gone quiet for a bit, and thats certainly not what I come here for.
If the diary's a modern fake I might even agree with you up to a point. I don't believe it is because thats what the present state of play with the evidence says, so I think its a tad misleading of you to say most people believe that. So I'm disagreeing with you big time, and in an equally friendly way of course!
If the diary should prove to be the work of someone, anyone, from 100 years back then IMHO it would tell us a helluva lot about what at least one person was thinking at the time, and that would be of huge importance. I'm very pleased that many people, (and it is many), continue to beaver away behind the scenes so that hopefully one day soon we can either rule it in or rule it out. If we don't, this nagging doubt will remain to irritate the hell out of Ripperologists for the rest of time.
But to get to the point.
Where in the diary does the author claim to have had sex with the victims. I must have read it a hunded times and yet I still missed it?
Hiya Lonely,
Yes it might just be real. All good sense says otherwise, but who knows? Nobody yet.
Regards,
Paul |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
"You know who" here, having a bit of fun while I wait for the weather to clear.
The diary "might be real."
I love this place.
What a wonderful crowd of people this is. Truly.
Surely one can say, with exactly the same degree of certainty, that "James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper" as one can say "Oscar Wilde was not Jack the Ripper." As of yet, there is no verifiable evidence against either guy, despite their both being alive and in the right place at the right time.
And every piece of evidence in the text that we have, including the handwriting itself, tells us the book's a fake.
Then Paul, just for a laugh, writes something about "the present state of play with the evidence." We've all seen all the textual evidence that suggests the book was written in modern times and no one has ever come up with a carefully crafted, believable scenario which would explain how those lines could have gotten there if the book had indeed been written in the 19th century. No one. Ever. And it's been around now for more than a decade.
Meanwhile, a modern composition scenario explains all these problems quite easily.
And besides, there is not a single piece of real evidence concerning the diary that I have ever seen anywhere that actually suggests the book is old.
No scientific report has ever said anything other than it could be, nothing in the text indicates that it is, and no testimony from anyone concerning any provenance or even its existence before 1980 has ever been verified. So where is this "evidence" that Paul so casually mentions?
Forget this "gone quiet" thing. I'm bored and it's still foggy outside and I want to see this "evidence" he's talking about.
Looking forward to its presentation here,
--John
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Hey Paul, Lonely Guy, and Jennifer
OK, it's true that not everybody agrees on a hoax--Robert Smith is one, or was the last I heard. But putting aside the when, I do think a general consensus has been reached.
Paul, it's from Harrison's book Diary of Jack the Ripper, which I don't have a copy of; I'm quoting from Alex Chisholm's "Done to Death, Myths & Legends". He cites:
“I shall award myself with the pleasures of the flesh, but I shall not be cutting ha. ha.” (p 312).
"I will take each and every one of them before I return them to their maker, damaged of course, severely damaged." (308)
"The whore was only too willing to do her business” (308).
I think I'm right that most reputable researchers believe the Diary to be a hoax, notably Keith Skinner, who as Caz says, is an authority. Keith might part company with others when it comes to dating it (he cites the ion migration testing which gives an outside 1921 date). Today, it's not a question of if, but when.
Again, no one I know of who's writing about the Whitechapel murders uses it as source material.
But if you think there's a shot that this thing is authentic, we're probably not going to agree on much anyway  Since we're not likely to convince one another of anything, I'll just say cheers and wish you all a splendid weekend.
Dave
Jennifer--thanks for your part in organizing new testing and making the results available to everyone here. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 757
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Paul
If the diary's a modern fake I might even agree with you up to a point. I don't believe it is because thats what the present state of play with the evidence says, so I think its a tad misleading of you to say most people believe that.
Is there actually a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with the diary being a modern hoax?
And have you managed to think of any sort of plausible alternative explanation for the evidence in favour of its being a modern hoax? By which I mean: (1) the occurrence of the phrase "tin match box empty" and (2) Barrett's identification of the Crashaw quotation.
Unless both those questions can be answered in the affirmative, it's simply perverse to claim that the evidence is against its being a modern hoax.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on March 26, 2005) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
