|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 665
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 2:58 pm: |       |
Hi Caroline,
I put to you (based on what you said above) the following maybes/lies which could have occurred
1) Maybe james Maybrick wrote the diary and fantasised and lied about being JTR.
OR 2)conversly maybe JTR wrote the diary and wasn't James Maybrick, perhaps/maybe the diarist objective was based on his hatred of prostitutes and James Maybrick.
Maybe......................
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 520
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Jennifer,
If 1.), how did the real James Maybrick get to see the line from the police report and why does he screw up stuff about is own family members and why isn't the diary in anything even remotely like his handwriting?
If 2.), why did he get the details of his own murder wrong, how did the real killer see the police report on his own crimes, and why would the real killer want to pretend to be James Maybrick anyway?
Or is this all once again about traveling with our friend Figment into the delightful world of Imagination?
If so, then write on -- it'll have nothing to do with history or reality or the diary, but I'm sure it'll be as much fun as the other similar imaginings we've been seeing around here lately.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 668
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 5:35 am: | |
Hi John,
I do love figment and his imagination.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:23 am: | |
John, I grant you the Diary signature is different but the Dear Boss signature Ps and the Ps in the Maybrick Will are the same. Look at the word property on the left hand side of the first page of the Will, which you can find in the first Maybrick dissertation.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 542
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 11:57 pm: | |
MF,
First of all, you are telling me that the diary writing and the writing on the letter are different.
Now then, before we start comparing Maybrick's writing to anything else, surely we should compare it to the writing in the diary.
Look at the will again. Look at the letters we have by the real James again.
Now look at the first page of the diary.
Guess what?
--John |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
If the hand doesn't fit, you must acquit!
Okay, I looked at all 63 pages of the Diary not just page 1. The expectation was for the writer's 'disguised' hand to falter somewhere along the line and reveal himself as James Maybrick. No such luck--no flagging anywhere unless I want to call closed Ps opening up and ascending Ms descending as faltering. I don't. The letter variations in my own 'natural' hand are similar. My conclusion is that the Diary handwriting is not disguised and no positive match is possible. Hannah Koren, Feldman's graphologist, says the same thing and yet she can't rule out Maybrick. Why are those guys picking on a poor frustrated artist?!
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 729
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 8:40 pm: | |
Hi MF,
No, there would be no reason for the real James to disguise his handwriting when he lets us know who he is on the first page anyway.
So he didn't write this book.
Even a quick glance at his real handwriting tells us this.
It really is a fairly obvious conclusion. So the fact that it is taking some people so long to admit it should tell us something about desire, something about motive, something not about the Ripper or about the real James Maybrick, but about ourselves.
Always learning,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 7:01 am: | |
Excuse me once again, but I believe I did mention the reasons for doing this on another thread.
Here's a good one, the handwriting isn't Maybricks that kind of lets him off, no?
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 4:29 pm: | |
The Monster of Dusseldorf by Margaret Seaton Wagner has photographs of the Dusseldorf Ripper's "normal handwriting" and his "handwriting under stress". (info from Local Reference Service)
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 955
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:31 pm: | |
Hi, Jenn
Yep the handwriting disparity should let Maybrick off, and probably does, although some might argue (extending the tortuous excuses for keeping James Maybrick in the frame) that the Diary we know and love might be a copy of one written by Maybrick, despite the supposed anachronisms in the diary. Yes, that's right, it goes on and on and on, like the Energizer Bunny. 
By the way I was somewhat surprised and even happy to see Robert Smith admit to the possibility that the Diary might have been written as late as 1907, in the thread on the Crashaw line (../4922/9427.html"http://www.ripperologist.info">http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
Really?
Who exactly would argue that?
Why oh why Delia!!?? Well what is the point!!
Anyway, in that case would direct you to any of the other threads I so rashly reactivated this morning!
For god's sake don't let John O hear you say that kind of thing, it will only set him off!
Jenni
ps they might have copied the hitler diaries, or the abberline diaries or any other number of things, but guess what if they did we have a problem we don't have what they copied it from and so we cannot prove it.
pps let's not get ridicoulous i might start mentioning flat earthed space alien builders!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
some of us might argue that even if it were in James' handwriting (which it is clearly not) the textual differences make it impossible to cliam that Jack The Ripper wrote it!!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Yep the handwriting disparity should let Maybrick off, and probably does, although some might argue (extending the tortuous excuses for keeping James Maybrick in the frame) that the Diary we know and love might be a copy of one written by Maybrick, despite the supposed anachronisms in the diary.
This has crossed my mind as something the Maybrickites could argue, if the going became too difficult, but wouldn't they face formidable difficulties in the shape of all the crossings out?
But maybe no more formidable than the other difficulties they face anyway ...
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
Oh Man,
where's that broom cupboard!
Jenni
ps it's not in his handwriting!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 507
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
No but seriously.
I think this is not one of the Maybrickites' favourite threads for some reason (though as you know they will argue till the cows come home about how good Barrett was about finding books in his local library or about how many pubs in Liverpool could have been referred to as the P/post(e) H/house).
The only proper excuse for this "smoking gun" I've seen is the "Multiple Personality Disorder" one.
Even Caroline Anne Morris disowns that explanation. Though she does seem to hint that Maybrick's handwriting may have become totally unrecognisable when he was in a certain mood (i.e. Ripper mode).
Presumably, whatever the explanation is, the same explanation is supposed to apply to the spelling and grammar of the diary.
If any evidence has ever been advanced to support the argument that someone's handwriting, spelling and grammar become totally unrecognisable when they are in a certain mood, I must have missed it.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on September 28, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:42 pm: | |
Chris,
aren't you thinking of MPD?
Feldy?
have a read well worth it
Jenni
ps seriously????
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
Jenni
Yes, I think MPD was Feldman's favoured explanation. It's a while since I read his book, and there were so many impossible things to believe "before breakfast" that I may be confusing some.
Worth reading? Maybe you could say like Dr Johnson that it was worth reading but not worth going to read.
Chris Phillips
PS Seriously was just relative to the "transcript" theory.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 861
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 5:44 pm: | |
The diary is not in the real James Maybrick's handwriting.
It's not even close.
So unless we are willing to blindly accept some nonsensical and completely unevidenced fantasy story about MPD or drug crazed alterations into unrecognizable penmanship (and even experts say that at least some qualities of our writing remain consistent despite our "moods"), this thing is a fake.
As for Robert's recognition on the Crashaw thread that the diary might have been written after the real James was dead, I don't suspect that'll stop a new edition of the diary from appearing full of accompanying prose arguing that it is authentic.
Ah, well.
By the way, I suck at math, but regarding that thread, I do know at least this much about numbers:
122 during 30 years is a hell of a lot more than 7 during 50 years.
Yes, it's trivial and irrelevant to the crucial "established historical fact" that the diary and the Sphere Guide have the very same line excerpted and cited amidst prose within them (unlike any other books we have), and they were both given to us by the same guy; but at least the figures should be understood for what they actually say, despite Robert's desires.
Now back to the silly handwriting thread, where there will be no evidence offered by anyone to suggest that the real James wrote this book.
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Blimey - even the handwriting thread can't stand up for itself now, and has to have the Crashaw and Poste House crutches to support it.
Must be something to do with the mention of the monster of Dusseldorf, Peter Kurten, whose wife apparently didn't recognise his writing at times.
Nothing like the mention of a real case history to cause temporary divertions from the topic in hand.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 958
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
Hi Caz
Of course the "Monster of Dusseldorf" Peter Kurten was a known quantity, an acknowledged serial killer. We don't know if there was a Monster of Aigburth except in the diarist's imagination. 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 5:49 am: | |
Absolutely, Chris.
But it might just explain why on earth our Ryan-reading forger didn't bother to seek out the will, said to be written in James Maybrick's own shaky hand, and make a stab at copying the writing, at least towards the end of the diary, when the will was supposed to have been written.
Maybe the forger was thinking back to the Kurten case, and trying to make his 'Sir Jim' more like this known quantity, the acknowledged serial killer - in short, more authentic.
In most Ripperologists' imagination there is indeed a real live Monster of Aigburth - the diary itself. Some people are so afraid of it, they can't even bring themselves to think about it, let alone discuss it. So they will have to sit and wait for a braver soul to prove its origins and so lay the thing to rest.
Love,
Caz
X |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 463
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
"it might just explain why on earth our Ryan-reading forger didn't bother to seek out the will..."
Caz....err....how do you know?
Melvin Harris wrote that at one point he was assured by Paul Feldman that no samples of Maybrick's handwriting still existed (and we now know that this would include Maybrick's will) and that he (Feldman) had searched for them. Ergo, it wasn't simply a matter of reading Ryan, having a brainstorm, and popping down to the local courthouse. Regardless, what objective indication do we have that we are dealing with a sophisticated researcher? |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 273
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
RJ,
I don't know about being a "sophisticated researcher" but very possibly a clever rogue anyway. That is, were one to fake a document like the diary (either for fun or profit) it would seem infinitely wiser and easier to write it in a hand with which one is comfortable and facile rather than try the extremely difficult task of forging a known hand.
True, it would look nothing like that of the person who purportedly wrote the words, but there would always be the slight possibility of the MPD, drugs or other arguments to explain the difference.
Of course, when following that route it would be imperative not to make errors of fact or chronisticity. It certainly seems the Maybrick hoaxster slipped up there, but to have written it in a consistent hand, even if it bore no relation to the known Maybrick exemplars, would be the only way to go.
Don. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
Don--Perhaps I wasn't entirely articulate above. No; I don't disagree---it would have been a crippling task to imitate Maybrick's handwriting for page after page, so perhaps the point is somewhat moot. I just don't think there is any real indication that the Maybrick exemplars were "known" anyway; if the diary was written in the 1980s, the forger might have quite naturally concluded that all of Maybrick's private papers had long since fell prey to the ravages of time. Other than a controversial corpse, he was just a run-of-the-cotton-mill businessman. (Indeed, writing about the Maybrick Diary in his book Forging History, Joe Nickell wonders if the diarist was mortified when he/she/they learned that Maybrick's handwritten will ---as well as a copy of the 'Dear Boss' letter--- still existed).
But my real point was tediously specific. I just don't think the mere fact that Maybrick's will is quoted in Bernard Ryan's "The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick"---coupled with another obvious fact that no effort was made to imitate the handwriting (possibly for the reason you suggest)---allows one to conclude that Ryan's book wasn't used as a source for the diary's text. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 274
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
RJ,
Quite so. I was not taking issue with anything you had written in your post. Rather, I was just using it as a hook upon which to hang an observation I've held long before the diary appeared. That is, whenever trying something like a faked "holographic" document one is better off not trying to forge a known hand -- that will almost assuredly be detected in time. Instead, as I said, write it in a consistent hand and at least there will always be the sliver of possibility the supposed writer had disguied his own hand.
Otherwise, I quite agree with your latest post. Considering the many errors in the diary (which, in their totality, are overwhelmingly persuasive that it is a fake) it seems certain the hoaxer was not much of a researcher at all. Nor, as you state, is there any reason to conclude Ryan's book was not used.
Don. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 275
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 1:44 pm: | |
Hey all, I'm getting a complex. Ordinarily Diary World is the busiest place on the boards, but I make a couple of posts and suddenly it's a vast wasteland. I feel as if I stumbled into a ghost town . . . oops, there goes another tumbleweed scutting by.
What did I do wrong? 
Don. |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 5:39 pm: | |
...and they called him Threadkiller.
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 976
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 5:44 am: | |
Hi Donald
You certainly are in the unenviable position of giving the kiss of death to the Maybrick boards. What will we all do for entertainment from now on? 
I do think it probable that the forger wrote the Diary in more or less their own hand, albeit with added flourishes to provide a "ye olde" look to the document -- another supporting idea to the notion that the writer might have actually thought the Poste House in Cumberland Street would fit in since it too sounds "ye olde."
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Hi All,
I wrote:
But it might just explain why on earth our Ryan-reading forger didn't bother to seek out the will, said to be written in James Maybrick's own shaky hand, and make a stab at copying the writing, at least towards the end of the diary, when the will was supposed to have been written.
RJ, you asked:
Caz....err....how do you know?
How do I know what, exactly?
It doesn't significantly alter my basic 'might just explain' point, whether a Ryan-reading forger didn't try hard enough to dig out Maybrick's will; didn't know how to go about looking for it; sought it, found it, but then decided not to copy the writing; or missed the reference to the will entirely.
I do know that this Ryan-reading forger, for whatever reason, produced 63 pages in a hand he/she must have known would not compare with any of Maybrick's writing (including the will Ryan referred to), that may one day come to light as a result of the inevitable investigations into the document's creation.
Even the world's most incompetent forger would have made a conscious decision to take the risk and go ahead, and not forge Maybrick's handwriting for this confessional diary.
My suggestion was that the forger may have felt safe to do this because of the precedent set by serial killer, Peter Kurten. Alternatively, or in addition, he/she may have felt on safer ground in the way Donald suggests, and wouldn't have risked a stilted, forced copy of Maybrick's handwriting over 63 pages, whether a genuine example was available or not.
Presumably, if the forger wrote the thing in their own hand, to make the transcribing look as natural as possible (while taking care not to make any obvious transcribing errors), they would have wanted to be fairly confident that no one would recognise it as theirs and see fit to blow the whistle on them.
Conspiracies often come unstuck because the members fall out with each other. There must have been some serious loyalty issues going on over the past decade, or else the scallywags have somehow been kept in ignorance of each other's identities and roles. I still can't see how the whole thing fits together, and no one has tried to make me see.
Finally, I am not concluding that Ryan's book was not used by the diary's creator. Others theorise, and seem happy to conclude, that it was used, while I simply remain unconvinced by their reasoning.
I might have been a bit more convinced if I thought Ryan himself was at least open to the theory, but it seems he is not.
Love,
Caz
X
PS It wasn't you, Donald, who brought some much-needed quiet to these boards. I kept trying to tell a certain poster that it isn't me who wants to keep every diary thread alive for the sake of it, and maybe - just maybe - they've got the message at long last. 
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 186
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 6:43 am: | |
Well , personally I think its just an oversight about the will.
Whoever wrote the Diary was pretty smart in some ways ( to produce a pretty impressive character rendition of a serial killer in fitting Maybrick up ) but dumb in others ( Michael not writing verse , the Poste House , the Tin Matchbox empty etc ). Maybe they were a little overconfident ?
In certain areas , they seem to have skimped on the research I'm saying... |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Caz---As you wish. But Ryan never said anything directly about his book not being used. What he said was that he had read Paul Feldman's book and believed that Feldman had 'proved his case.' ie., that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. This is very different from Ryan stating that he attempted to do a systematic comparison of the material in the Maybrick Diary and the material in popular works on the Maybrick case. Very different. RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 7:42 am: | |
Hi RJ,
I know all that.
And maybe Ryan would change his mind about James being JtR if he saw the list you compiled to support your theory that the diarist took some of his Maybrick info straight from the pages of Ryan's The Poisoned Life....
And maybe he wouldn't.
Maybe Alec Voller, Diamine Ink's former chief chemist, would change his professional opinion that Diamine ink was not used for the diary, and that the writing is 90+ years old, if someone could succeed in locating a bottle of pre-1992 Diamine, so that the long-overdue direct chemical comparison with the diary ink could be made.
And maybe he wouldn't.
Hi Simon,
Another thing that impresses me about the creator of the diary, apart from succeeding one way or t'other in getting specialists like Ryan and Voller to dance to his/her merry tune, is the way the two basic concepts - 1) a diary, and 2) James Maybrick as JtR - were thought of and then played out.
What I wonder is this: which came first? The idea of a written ripper 'confession', in the form of thoughts recorded before, during and after the events of 1888? Or the idea of James Maybrick, a Liverpudlian, committing the ripper crimes 200 miles away in Whitechapel, London?
The image of Sir Jim, back in Liverpool, needing a constant reminder of the fact that he is indeed the most wanted man in England, on account of his exploits when in Whitechapel, London, is a powerful one IMHO, and is served well by having him record his thoughts, and do things like engage his close friend George in conversation about the murder of Polly Nichols, because he just couldn't resist talking to someone real and significant about his deed. So many miles removed, where he was plain old innocent James again, this real and significant 'deed' would have seemed someone else's.
Had the idea revolved around a character who came from the immediate area, such as Leather Apron, would his need to write about what he was and what he was doing have been as acute as the apparent need of the long-distance variety?
Love,
Caz
X
Apologies for straying off topic. |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page