|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 695
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 4:47 am: |       |
Hi Billy,
Many thanks for reading our book and for the very uplifting comments.
Now, one editorial comment: EVERYONE connected with the Diary had to be nuts!!!
Sickert’s handwriting, if anyone believes Cornwell and her band of helpers, appears in an extraordinary range and number of styles – as many, in fact, as all the letters they claim he wrote claiming to be the ripper. The author of the diary, choosing to write in just one style, unrecognisable as Maybrick’s, ‘Dear Boss’ or ‘Mishter Lusk’, is but small fry by comparison.
Hi Chris (P),
Oh no, you don’t get out of it that easily.
You are the one still claiming the diarist’s ‘Poste House’ is obviously the one in Cumberland Street, and therefore proves he was writing in recent years.
I am claiming nothing at all. Neither am I a ‘pro-diarist’. I have simply offered a possible alternative that challenges your claim. You have decided to reject it out of hand. Well, there’s a surprise.
The ‘Old Post Office’ pub in School Lane remains a plausible alternative until you have explained to everyone’s satisfaction why it shouldn’t. Reject it if you like, for no good reason, but every single open-minded person reading your rejection will judge your claim, your objectivity and therefore your credibility as a diary commentator accordingly. Your choice.
When you talk about ‘anachronisms’ in the diary, I would just remind you that I am exploring claims that the diary could not possibly have been written before the late 1980s.
Hi Paul,
You’d think the handwriting not being Maybrick’s would be proof enough for some people, wouldn’t you? Well, you’d be quite wrong.
Oddly, an awful lot of time and effort and academic grey matter has also gone into ‘proving’ that a Victorian middle-class gent from Liverpool (with its disproportionately large Catholic community) could never have had access to any of Crashaw’s poetry, while a 20th century working-class scouser, who is a known liar, is believed without question when he claims to have acquired some in 1989 and kept it in his home for five years.
You may not already know that during a phone call in 1995, between Mike Barrett and the late Melvin Harris, Mike ‘gloated’ that by finding the five word quotation that appears in the diary, he had succeeded where ‘all you scholars’ had failed. Not one literature specialist had read the diary and recognised the quotation for what it was. Yet Mike could boast that he had succeeded in finding exactly where it came from.
It is beyond me why Mike would be ‘gloating’ in this manner to the very person he was supposed to be convincing that he only knew where it came from because he had chosen it himself, simply by looking through a book he happened to own at the time!
You really couldn’t make this stuff up. I want to see it all dramatised one day.
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 696
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 5:22 am: | |
Hi again all,
And don’t forget that when Mike rang Paul Feldman’s office to boast about his library find, he confided in Feldy’s secretary how he was planning to use this knowledge to ‘prove’ his forgery claims.
So much for playing one investigator against another.
Mike just couldn’t help gloating about how he was going to stitch up Feldman, while talking to his secretary, and later couldn’t help gloating to Harris about how he had beaten all the scholars working on the diary by finding out where its one quotation came from.
Love,
Caz
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 5:34 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris
It must be clear to anyone who read my message that I'm not claiming - as you assert - that the "Poste House" incident "proves" anything, let alone that the diary was forged in "recent years". I started out by saying I didn't think the "Poste House" evidence was as clear cut as it had first appeared. Nor have I "rejected your explanation out of hand". I'd just like to see some more concrete evidence for it, that's all.
Thanks to those who have put forward alternative explanations for the difficulties I raised. Those have helped me a little to understand how those keeping an "open mind" reconcile the problems.
The rest of the discussion has also helped me to understand this, but in a different way.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 6:37 am: | |
One small point of logic:
Citing a liar's lies proves only that the liar has lied.
It tells us nothing else.
Mike "gloating to Harris about how he had beaten all the scholars working on the diary by finding out where its one quotation came from" is a case in point.
And any sentence which begins, "It is beyond me why Mike would..." is bound to fail, since it suggests Mike's behavior should be rational when it clearly has not been throughout the history of the case.
--John
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 6:37 pm: | |
Hi Chris
No I don’t think I shall dwell any longer on these supposed anachronisms until you do me the courtesy of a proper response to my question to you, asking you to justify precisely why any explanation other than your own is always so implausible.
I know when I’m wasting my time….
I can only repeat. Stand back a bit and take off the blinkers. Take a long hard look at the diary and see that he gets so much of it right. Page after page. Thousands of words of it. Some of it brilliantly so…….. and all you and a few others can manage is to argue that a couple of dozen words may just not fit in with a few long held theories.
Allowing for the fact that I expect the only thing we’ll ever agree upon is that it was written by a human being, then a small allowance must be given for human error. That’s only fair, but thousands of words of text, some revealing known facts about Maybrick in particular, that don’t feature in any of the books, against a couple of dozen words that may or may not be quite right? Nit picking is precisely what it is.
All the statistical probability talk that goes on here amongst those who concentrate their arguments upon these few supposed small slip ups by the diarist, should just try taking the same view in the context of the diary as a whole. The statistical probability of it not being a modern forgery is pretty good then isn’t it?
These “anachronisms” count not a jot as they prove nothing in themselves, and never will unless you can come up with a cast iron, copper-bottomed outright error, and you haven’t. Not by a million miles.
I’m sorry, but trying to argue against the diary in this way just shows what a very weak position the anti diary argument is in these days.
I’m just saddened that I came here to try and debate and enrich my knowledge of the diary and Maybrick’s candidacy as the Ripper. It becomes almost impossible to do so when any posting from someone who isn’t a fully signed up member of the anti-diary brigade gets launched upon by about six other posters telling him that he’s wasting his time. Any genuine and sensible posting soon becomes swamped and is in danger of getting overlooked. That’s a shame!
I follow some of the other suspect’s threads here with great interest, and some of those theories seem to me to be preposterous, but I don’t go in there and tell them all so.
Hi Sadie
You make some good points in your posting, (although I do think personally that the diary and Maybrick’s claim to be the Ripper are inextricably linked). Someone put it really well on another thread recently that the only cast iron facts we can absolutely claim to know in the ripper case are, “……..some women were horribly murdered in the east end of London, and nobody got caught for it”!
Regards
Paul
P.S. Sadie. I think you’re very brave too!
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
Dear John O
I just read your post. I have absolutely no reason to doubt your qualifications, but as to how precisely that allows you to know for a fact what Maybrick's taste in poetry might have been is quite beyond me. We know he made futile attempts at writing his own, and Crashaw was availble at the time, so it's impossible for him to have owned a copy?
Regards
Paul |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 6:21 am: | |
Hi all
What is a forgery?
If the diary is a forgery, it does not tell us who JTR is. Even if it was written by James Maybrick, it does not tell us he was JTR.
It is incumbent on those who produce evidence to prove its authenticity beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way round. (This seems to be forgotten sometimes - somehwere else we are discussing spitting rumours.) And to prove the diary's "authenticity" - in the sense that it was written by the genuine JTR - not only must the Diary be proved to be of appropriate age etc., but some independant corroboration must be found that Maybrick comitted the murders rather than fantasising about them. (Not the watch - if he could produce one he could produce the other - as could any other forger)
I realise there are some that are interested in the diary for its own sake, but until someone can show any evidence for it being genuine (genuine in the sense it was written by James Maybrick, or someone attempting to incrimminate James Maybrick, _and_ the person who wrote it was JTR or knew Maybrick was JTR) then it doesn't help us finger who Jacky actually was.
All the 'nit-picky' stuff tends to suggest it is a modern fake, but modern or old is irrelevant to the search for Jack if it is a fake.
The 'explanations ' simply serve to show that no evidence is incontrovertible - which is why criminal cases rely on a weight of evidence, and corroboration between evidence, to reach a result. The more unliklely explanations one has to stack up, the less credible the case is.
Having given the forbidding impression above , I have to say my own reaction to the diary is largely knee-jerk - it's _too_ neat!
Regards
Pete |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 9:51 am: | |
Dear Caz.
I’m with you all the way on the handwriting issue. I posted last night concerning the Crashaw and other “anachronisms” that the diary may or may not present, but as I’m not a registered member my posts appear “out of synch” a while later.
My fault I know for a delay in registering, but I was waiting to see if I felt like hanging around before putting anyone to the bother. I’m not so sure that I will, if the pompous and sneering type of response I got from a certain someone yesterday is the standard of “debate” we have to accept here.
I wonder how posterity will judge the diary based on what’s going on here now? A mass of evidence from several sources to show Michael Barrett’s complete ineptitude with the written word, quite apart from his lack of a grasp on reality. A diary that has had the most scathing of attacks on it’s content and make up for a dozen years and yet is virtually undented…….and I’m supposed to meekly believe that Barrett did it?
That’s why I for one want to know more. I have read “The Inside Story” and Shirley Harrison’s latest. Both are excellently written and easily digestable. There are hundreds, probably thousands more diary sceptics out there, all with brains of their own. Maybrick is the public’s favourite suspect despite more recent books naming others. The casebook poll shows that they visit this site in respectable numbers and could well be reading this thread on a regular basis. I did for a long time. I should like to talk to them, but they all seem to have enough sense to stay away, for now at least.
Paul
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
Paul Stephen--Hello. I'm quite impressed by your post above. Particularly when you refer to "known facts about Maybrick in particular, that don’t feature in any of the books." This would be startling evidence indeed of 'inside knowledge' into the Maybrick household.
If you don't mind, I'd be most interested in hearing some examples of these "facts" that haven't appeared in books on Maybrick. Can you oblige?
Thanks, RP |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
Paul,
It's much more a question of literary history and Maybrick's history than it is a question of "taste." And the appearance of those five words is, in the opinion of every independent expert I have approached, without exception, evidence that the real James Maybrick did not write this book.
Of course, so is the fact that the handwriting of the person who did write this book looks nothing like the real Maybrick's (which is part of the historical record).
But obviously there are some who are not going to let history stand in the way of keeping hope alive.
Keep researching and reading, Paul. Learn more and see then what you think. Eventually, I believe, you will be forced by the information available, to admit that the real James Maybrick did not write this book.
--John
PS: I do offer some details concerning the specific histories in question on the old boards, which can be found on the archive CD. You might want to check it out.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 702
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 9:01 am: | |
Hi Pete,
You are right about a criminal case relying on a weight of evidence to reach a result.
But until we know when the diary was written, we can’t even ascertain the nature of any crimes that may have been committed in connection with its creation.
There is no criminal case as such, regarding what can arguably be called the unique circumstance of the emergence in late 20th century Liverpool of this two-artefact Jack the Ripper confession. Therefore none of us is required to reach a result, whether it would be based on our own, or anyone else’s calculation of the weight of evidence.
In short, there is no one who can claim to ‘specialise’ in dating or authenticating unsolved murder confessions. I have no one’s proven success rate in determining age and status, with sufficient examples to show how it can and should be done, to guide me.
We have enough self-appointed ‘experts’, whose opinions differ radically from one another’s, even within the same fields of expertise, to make the point for me.
Anyone is free to reach a ‘result’ if they feel qualified to do so, or to accept the conclusions of others who claim to be qualified.
I prefer to keep watching and waiting for someone, or some evidence, I know I can put my faith in. I'm in no hurry.
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 10:44 am: | |
If my memory serves me correctly, some long while ago Peter Birchwood made an interesting comment concerning the dating of the Maybrick Diary. It would seem that Melvin Harris remarked that in the 19th and early 20th Century it was not uncommon to use old newspapers and other similar printed matter to construct the 'stuffing' on the insides of a book's cover. The idea here is that the journal itself (not the writing) might be dated by examining the inside of the Diary's cover.
It would be a relatively simple matter to take a core sample of the book's back cover using a hollow needle (there are specific tools made for taking core samples) and thus get an idea of what was in there. It would be nothing but a smallish, inobtrusive pin-prick or two on the edge of the back cover; under a microscope the core could then be examined.
If there was indeed newsprint, a professional bookbinder or someone versed in such matters could be hired (at a low cost) to dissemble the back cover and examine the insides for any tell-tale signs of a date. I would think that this could all be done very professionally with no effect whatsover on the diary's monetary value. Considering it is not uncommon for priceless paintings &tc. to be similarly examined by museums, I can't see why there would be any objection.
It would also be interesting to get the opinion of someone who is an expert on bookbinding. There are those who have been so bold as to hazard a guess that the scrapbook is not Victorian at all, but Edwardian.
Personally, I have no doubt whatsoever that the diary is a forgery based on secondary sources. But for those with lingering doubts who want the chance of finding out something potentially irrefutable, why not give it a go? Why not do something practical? |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 579
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
Hi, RJ:
Indeed if you have ever seen an old book in which the binding is falling apart, you can see the material used to stiffen the binding which is often taken from other books or printed material (not necessarily newspapers). So I think the investigation of the diary's binding could be very revelatory as to the dating of the book. Of course, the Maybrickites would have a ready answer for such a finding: the book was rebound between 1889 and today. 
All the best
Chris |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 181
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
RJ,
Ain't gonna' happen.
Trust me on this one.
--John
(And to get this post posted I need seventeen more words more than two letters long. That should do it.) |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 4:57 am: | |
Hello All,
Regarding the word 'Forgery'.
Chambers Dictionary:
Forgery; to fabricate, to illegally copy a genuine article, signature etc. Forger; one who knowingly makes alterations to writings, documents and counterfeits for personal gain.
So a forgery is the criminal copy of a genuine article, and as a vast majority who post on the casebook do not consider the diary/ledger genuine it cannot be called a forgery.
It is simply a Hoax.
A.
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 8:50 am: | |
R.J. and Chris,
In 1998 Donald Rumbelow raised some questions regarding the binding of the diary, and an examination of the diary was performed by a friend of his. ("Bill the Bookbinder") Apparently the diary did NOT show any signs that it had been rebound, or otherwise tampered with so that may very well be a worthwhile avenue to pursue. A good place to start would probably be to see if you could get in touch with Bill via Donald Rumbelow and get the details of his examination to see if there was any evidence that the covers were stuffed, or any other relevant details that might bear on the binding.
Bill would probably also be able to provide advice in how to proceed in further examination if such is merited.
Regards,
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
Hi All,
Good post Andy!
But why the long face? 
See you and Sue tomorrow I hope.
It’s refreshing to see the majority of posts being made of more constructive stuff than the modern forgery believers had been serving up previously. After all, as has been suggested recently, it should be far easier for someone to prove beyond all doubt that the diary is a post-1989 (or at least post-1889) creation, assuming that is indeed what it is, than for anyone who is trying to prove the words were written at the right time, if indeed they were.
Only one fatal obstacle is needed for the former. Every tiny little detail has to be proved consistent for the latter. The most a pro-diarist could reasonably hope for is the continued inability to find that one fatal obstacle, leaving the theory standing (as a theory), however shakily. A firing squad of cynics pointing a million guns at the diary won’t do the trick until one of those guns is smoking.
This isn’t me holding onto a dream. I don’t do dreams. I would be beside myself with relief if Mike were suddenly willing to reveal how he really came into possession of the diary, and what else he knows or suspects about its origins. But I don’t believe that would involve telling us whose writing appears in the diary, or being able to prove it. I don’t believe his knowledge extends that far, sadly.
Have a great weekend all, and let’s be optimistic about all possible developments.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on February 06, 2004) |
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Paul Stephen
Any sensible point, which questions whether the diary is a hoax, or hinting Maybrick could be the Ripper, is immediately and frenetically attacked on the boards even a whole decade after its publication. The cause of the anger is, I suggest, because so many people don’t actually think it is a hoax.
As you and others have pointed out Patricia Cornwell’s Portrait of a Killer does not persuade many people to believe Sickert was the Ripper. Yet her book is by far the most commercially successful book ever published on the Ripper. It was a UK bestseller in hardback, and in paperback hit the official UK No 1 spot for three consecutive weeks, displacing even Dr Atkins’ New Diet.
No one pays much attention to Cornwell any more, because they are not threatened by her book. Nor do they bother much these days about royal conspiracy theories. But mention the diary, which sold relatively poorly compared to Patricia Cornwell’s or Stephen Knight’s books and the hackles rise.
I am all for Chris Phillips throwing out challenges on the details of the Ripper murders in relationship to the diary. I just don’t have the knowledge of Ripper lore to respond. One needs to know when each bit of information would have been known/lost/found again, or indeed whether is a fact. Joseph Barnett saying that the key was lost, doesn’t sound like a proven fact to me, but I am not the right person to debate it.
Dr Omlor expects us to rule out any possibility that Maybrick knew the five words of Crashaw. He relies on the six scholars on his campus and a “handful” of other academics, in America, whom we are told “were utterly professional and objective”, and who all “said no”.
Now, to see just how objective they were, read Dr Omlor’s next sentence:
“Every single one of them confirmed without hesitation that the appearance of that line from that poem in a diary signed by that historical figure was clear evidence that the diary was a forgery”.
But where did these objective people learn their knowledge, untainted by any bias about the diary and about the historical figure, and who told them that their task was to pronounce on whether the diary was a forgery? Could it have been the objective Dr Omlor, who scrupulously did not lead or introduce bias to his group of scholars?
What, one wonders, was so conclusive that it ruled out the possibility that he could be a reasonably educated middle-class gentleman, brought up in a religious environment, one presumes, as his father was the parish clerk, and living and working in the most Catholic area in Great Britain.
And this “clear evidence” is all “before” these objective scholars have even been told about the Sphere guide.
Then with another leap, we are told, as a fact, that Mike Barrett owned a copy of a book, which contained the five words. Who is the sole authority for Mr Barrett having owned a copy of the book, prior to October 1994? Why, Mr Barrett, the very same man, who claimed he could prove he forged the diary, but could offer no evidence that he had acquired any of the items required for the forgery – like a blank diary, some ink, a pen, and some reference books on the Ripper and Maybrick. The high point in that particular farce, was when he claimed he would produce the lot ticket from Outhwaite and Litherland for the purchase of the blank diary, in front of the audience at the Cloak and Dagger Club on 12th April 1999. First, it was in his top pocket. Then, no, he must have left it at his hotel. He would put it in the post. We are still waiting.
I don’t know about “PhD’s (sic) in literature”, but how about some care with the language when using words like “objective” and “clear evidence”.
Who are these PhDs? Do they have names and titles, or are they to remain anonymous?
What is their particular expertise, that is so relevant to a Victorian gentleman in Liverpool, Jack the Ripper and a poem by Crashaw. Knowing something about metaphysical poetry doesn’t quite do it.
And why are we meant to be so impressed with these PhDs, when other PhDs who actually do have credentials relevant to the diary, fail to impress Dr Omlor? I am thinking of Professor Canter of Liverpool University, Professor Rubinstein of the University of Wales, Dr David Forshaw of Broadmoor Hospital, Dr Nicholas Eastaugh, Dr Robert Wild of Bristol University and Dr Stephen Turgoose of UMIST? |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 7:14 pm: | |
Dear R J
I think your posting is a brilliant idea. It's a refreshing change to hear a new approach to the problem being suggested.
However the last bit of your post concerning getting an expert bookbinder to look at it has already been done, and he was entirely satisfied with it.
Still an excellent idea though.
Paul |
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
RJ Palmer
I am responding immediately to your post, although it won’t seem so, as this post will have the usual day or two delay for “unregistered guests”.
You may not know that on 7th February 1998, Donald Rumbelow raised the question of having the diary examined by his expert on old bindings. It was only one month or so later (on 19th March 1998), that Don and his expert, whom I only knew as Bill the bookbinder, came to my offices to conduct his examination. It was recorded by Keith Skinner and I understand he is making a copy of the tape for John Hacker, and if you really wish to investigate the subject of the diary’s binding, you will want to listen to the tape yourself.
I wonder where Melvin Harris got the idea, that hardback books could be bound by using old newspapers “to construct the stuffing on the inside of the book’s cover”. As far as I know, Melvin never showed any interest in examining the diary itself, not even when it was on display at the book launch in October 1993.
The diary is half-bound, i.e. the boards are covered in a hard cloth binding, with a leather spine and leather corners for protection. As far as I know, the boards are strawboard or millboard, constructed from finely pulped materials, to provide strength and rigidity. Newsprint surely would conflict with the purpose of achieving rigidity, and presumably, one would feel some softness in the boards, if fragments of newspaper had been used.
Chris George refers to “printed material” being in old bindings. I think he must be referring to the strip of paper around the spine, which holds the glue to the spine during manufacture. In modern books, the strip would be plain thick paper, but in earlier times, printers/binders would often use excess printed sheets from other books for the purpose. However, this did not happen in the case of the diary, as would be apparent on any visual examination.
Re the distinction between a late Victorian and an Edwardian date for manufacturing the diary, I would be interested to hear of any technical explanation of how one could distinguish between book bindings of the two periods. Apart from decorative details, (such as the style of gold tooling on the spine), not a lot happened in the world of book printing and binding between the 1880s and 1910. I actually have a scrapbook with entries from the 1870s, which is physically near identical to the diary in size, boards, paper, and decoration.
Despite persistent sneers from certain quarters, I can point to a consistent history of making the diary available for tests and examinations. Five independent scientific organisations tested the ink and paper, and usually the binding as well. In addition Shirley, of course, took the diary to Robert AH Smith, the British Museum’s curator of 19th Century manuscripts and to Brian Lake, owner of Jarndyce, who specialise in 19th Century literature. On 17th September 1996, paper expert, Peter Bower examined the diary in my offices, and in 1998 came the examination by Bill the bookbinder, as described above.
As I have confirmed many times on these boards, I would be perfectly happy to allow competent, relevant and communicative experts to conduct further appropriate tests on the diary, which are not simply repeating the earlier tests.
Those people who were originally involved in evaluating the diary from mid-July 1992 onwards – Shirley Harrison, Doreen Montgomery, Keith Skinner, Paul Begg and Martin Fido and I – have only ever wanted to discover its true origins, and it is absolutely fine with any of us if, today or any other day, it is proved to be a fake. And if that day arrives, I shall be equally happy to take the diary back to Liverpool, drop it into the River Mersey and leave its fate to the scouse mermaids.
|
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Paul Stephen
Any sensible point, which questions whether the diary is a hoax, or hinting Maybrick could be the Ripper, is immediately and frenetically attacked on the boards even a whole decade after its publication. The cause of the anger is, I suggest, because so many people don’t actually think it is a hoax.
As you and others have pointed out Patricia Cornwell’s Portrait of a Killer does not persuade many people to believe Sickert was the Ripper. Yet her book is by far the most commercially successful book ever published on the Ripper. It was a UK bestseller in hardback, and in paperback hit the official UK No 1 spot for three consecutive weeks, displacing even Dr Atkins’ New Diet.
No one pays much attention to Cornwell any more, because they are not threatened by her book. Nor do they bother much these days about royal conspiracy theories. But mention the diary, which sold relatively poorly compared to Patricia Cornwell’s or Stephen Knight’s books and the hackles rise.
I am all for Chris Phillips throwing out challenges on the details of the Ripper murders in relationship to the diary. I just don’t have the knowledge of Ripper lore to respond. One needs to know when each bit of information would have been known/lost/found again, or indeed whether is a fact. Joseph Barnett saying that the key was lost, doesn’t sound like a proven fact to me, but I am not the right person to debate it.
Dr Omlor expects us to rule out any possibility that Maybrick knew the five words of Crashaw. He relies on the six scholars on his campus and a “handful” of other academics, in America, whom we are told “were utterly professional and objective”, and who all “said no”.
Now, to see just how objective they were, read Dr Omlor’s next sentence:
“Every single one of them confirmed without hesitation that the appearance of that line from that poem in a diary signed by that historical figure was clear evidence that the diary was a forgery”.
But where did these objective people learn their knowledge, untainted by any bias about the diary and about the historical figure, and who told them that their task was to pronounce on whether the diary was a forgery? Could it have been the objective Dr Omlor, who scrupulously did not lead or introduce bias to his group of scholars?
What, one wonders, was so conclusive that it ruled out the possibility that he could be a reasonably educated middle-class gentleman, brought up in a religious environment, one presumes, as his father was the parish clerk, and living and working in the most Catholic area in Great Britain.
And this “clear evidence” is all “before” these objective scholars have even been told about the Sphere guide.
Then with another leap, we are told, as a fact, that Mike Barrett owned a copy of a book, which contained the five words. Who is the sole authority for Mr Barrett having owned a copy of the book, prior to October 1994? Why, Mr Barrett, the very same man, who claimed he could prove he forged the diary, but could offer no evidence that he had acquired any of the items required for the forgery – like a blank diary, some ink, a pen, and some reference books on the Ripper and Maybrick. The high point in that particular farce, was when he claimed he would produce the lot ticket from Outhwaite and Litherland for the purchase of the blank diary, in front of the audience at the Cloak and Dagger Club on 12th April 1999. First, it was in his top pocket. Then, no, he must have left it at his hotel. He would put it in the post. We are still waiting.
I don’t know about “PhD’s (sic) in literature”, but how about some care with the language when using words like “objective” and “clear evidence”.
Who are these PhDs? Do they have names and titles, or are they to remain anonymous?
What is their particular expertise, that is so relevant to a Victorian gentleman in Liverpool, Jack the Ripper and a poem by Crashaw. Knowing something about metaphysical poetry doesn’t quite do it.
And why are we meant to be so impressed with these PhDs, when other PhDs who actually do have credentials relevant to the diary, fail to impress Dr Omlor? I am thinking of Professor Canter of Liverpool University, Professor Rubinstein of the University of Wales, Dr David Forshaw of Broadmoor Hospital, Dr Nicholas Eastaugh, Dr Robert Wild of Bristol University and Dr Stephen Turgoose of UMIST?
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 5:54 pm: | |
Robert Smith wrote:
I am all for Chris Phillips throwing out challenges on the details of the Ripper murders in relationship to the diary. I just don’t have the knowledge of Ripper lore to respond. One needs to know when each bit of information would have been known/lost/found again, or indeed whether is a fact. Joseph Barnett saying that the key was lost, doesn’t sound like a proven fact to me, but I am not the right person to debate it.
In principle I suppose it's fair to say this is not a "proven fact", any more than any of the other evidence from 1888.
I dare say that doubt has been cast on Barnett's statement about the key, but only by those who think Barnett himself may have committed the murders. Anyone arguing that the diary is genuine has to exclude that possibility, as far as I can see, which leaves no reason I can think of for Barnett to claim the key had been lost if it hadn't.
Interestingly, Caroline Morris in another thread does seem to accept that the key was lost (unless, of course, I'm reading more than I should into her posts). It would be interesting to know why she wouldn't class the diarist's claim to have absconded with the key as a "smoking gun", indicating that the diary is a hoax.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
Wow,
I get it twice.
RJ,
It'll never happen.
Robert,
I'll be happy to give you names and titles if you want them (and with their permission). And no, I told them nothing about the story or about the diary's other myriad problems or about any of the disputes. I merely told them who the real James Maybrick was, where and when he lived, what he did for a living, his history, etc. and even sent them to books on Maybrick and then asked them about Crashaw.
Their expertise varies, but includes Victorian literature and history and 17th Century British Poetry.
You can choose to be "impressed" by their unanimity or not. I have no doubt what your choice will be, of course. Just as I have no doubt what is driving your rhetoric here.
As for what Mike knew and when he knew it, my post to Caz on the "O Costly Intercourse..." board offers my reasons for my own position.
And I note that the last date to appear in your post describing any diary testing of any sort whatsoever is 1998.
'Nuff said.
Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. And hope will be kept alive.
But the thing's a fake and the only reason some of us still hang around here and raise our "hackels" is because the hoax is not only being allowed to continue, it's still being promoted.
It presents no threat to history (thankfully) because serious scholars and historians saw through it almost at once. But the lingerers, the newcomers, the curious are still being seduced by the story, and while that might be fine for the entertainment value, it's really something of a shame for the intellectual standing of the field.
But I'm spitting into the wind. I know that. Nothing will change and the same circles will be travelled and the same excuses and million-to-one monkey logics will be invoked in the name of keeping the "mystery" (and the hope) alive.
So be it. But this book was not written by James Maybrick. It's not even in his hand. And it was certainly not written by Jack the Ripper.
In fact, I believe it was written by someone who knew who Michael Caine was. But that's another story.
"therefore, ye soft pipes, play on... ditties of no tone."
But every now and then come back to history and to scholarship and to common sense. Just for fun.
All the best,
--John
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 7:41 pm: | |
Robert--Thanks for your response. I'm afraid I must have misremembered certain technical aspects of Melvin's proposed examination of the binding--I certainly take all the blame for not recalling what was meant by 'printed matter.' I stand corrected. Your many years of experience in the publishing business is certainly useful here. Looking at the photograph of the Diary (facing pg. 88 of the Linder, Morris, & Skinner book), it appears as though the edges of the scrapbook are quite extensively worn by handling--perhaps somewhat surprising had the book been hidden in the floorboards of Battlecrease for nearly a hundred years. Hmm., it's interesting. If I understand you correctly, you are stating that there is enough wear to the spine that a visual examination clearly demonstrates that no "excess printed sheets" were used? I suppose then that such a test as Melvin proposed would be pointless. Perhaps John Hacker might discover something of interest in his research.
But let me move on for a moment. I'm interested in your statement that "not a lot happened in the world of book printing and binding between the 1880s and 1910. This would seem to pose a bit of a problem. Could there be any other indications that might help us date the scrapbook?
I happened upon a copy of Kenneth Rendell's report some time ago. It's not dated, but I assume it was written in the 1990s. It's headed "The Kenneth W. Rendell Gallery, Inc.---Report on the Diary of Jack the Ripper."
On pg. 8 of the report, Rendell makes an interesting claim. He writes about an examination of the Diary using ultraviolet light. "The ultraviolet examination showed that rectangular pieces, probably postcards, were mounted on the first, now missing page (an outline of thier images appear on the first existing page). It also showed no age offset of the ink of the diary."
Since the 'journal' was, in fact, intended to be a scrapbook, I suppose we shouldn't find this too startling. It had evidently been used for this purpose sometime in the past.
Dr. Baxendale seems to offer us some additonal information about these 'rectangles' which he independently discovered during his earlier examination of the Diary. I quote from Linder, Morris, & Skinner, pg. 13: Dr. Baxendale discovered stuck in the binding "a fragment of what he believed to be the 'torn edge of a small photograph.' " Baxendale found glue on the diary. He would later observed that the scrapbook "may have contained photographs of a size that was popular between the two wars."(p. 62) [ie., roughly 1919-1938].
Now, trusting your own expert opinion that we can't date the initial creation of the scrapbook any more accurately than aprox. 1870-1910, and considering Maureen Owen's opinion that the Diary's handwriting was "not consistent with letter formations of the late 1880s" (Rendell, p 10), and, further, considering the reasonable hypothesis that the Diary contained photographs of the size "popular between the wars", is it reasonable for me to conclude that the Diary's compostion most likely dates to sometime after 1919? In otherwords, that it must have been written 30 years too late to be James Maybrick's, and fifteen years too late to be an 'old forgery' written (as some have suggested) "to secure the release of Florence Maybrick"? RP
P.S. Keats. Even I know that one. |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 6:37 pm: | |
Dear Robert
Very many thanks for your post. I am pleased to see someone take my point about the way the debate seems to work here. I am a newbie, and have great respect for those who genuinely try to help me understand. Some of the staunch anti diary brigade though, are a different kettle of fish, and I too wonder at the motive behind some of the condescending responses that I and others have had.
As I said before, I am clearly not in a minority in remaining a “diary sceptic”. I believe there are very many people out there who would dearly love to debate the diary and it’s story further. They do come to this site as passive readers I’m sure, and have voted overwhelmingly for Maybrick as their favourite suspect in the poll, and yet are a small minority on the casebook message boards.
The reason for this is clear to me now, as every little point which is seen as “pro diary” gets seized upon with apparent glee as you’re informed what a waste of time your question or point of view was in the first place, because it has all been proven to be a fake, forgery or whatever.
The sad thing is that I have never once said I believed the diary was by Maybrick, and yet it is assumed I do. Because I don’t go along with some of the rather feeble arguments against the diary I must be a “Maybrickite”. It does not seem to be possible to occupy any sort of middle ground. Caz does a good job, and I enjoy her common sense style postings immensely.
Comments like those by Doctor Ormlor tend to have an opposite effect on me to that intended anyway, as I have a mind of my own and wonder why anyone should need to put forward such a weak and unsubstantiated argument if they are convinced the thing is all wrong in the first place. It just gets me all the more interested to find out for myself.
I am no Ripper expert either, and don’t want to be. I have a healthy interest that’s all. I have read many of the best reference books on the subject, which I think I have digested fairly well. That’s why I came here. To learn from the experts. I hope it will still be possible.
I have no problem with Chris Phillips throwing out those questions concerning the alleged inconsistencies in the diary text either. I came here for that sort of debate. I see that new threads have been provided for that, and an excellent idea they are too. I just hope they aren’t hijacked by those who would rather preach than converse.
All the best
Paul
P.S. My Mother’s Brother has a PhD in mathematics. I’ll ask him what he thinks next time I see him……..
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
