|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
So, if Maybrick didn't write it, who did?
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
So, if Maybrick didn't write it, who did?
Author: Stephanie Loyd
Tuesday, 17 November 1998 - 08:52 pm |        | As you might notice, there is a conversation started to discuss whether or not there is justification in connecting the diary with Maybrick. If you've already decided that Maybrick didn't write it, there are people who are more than happy to discuss whether or not the forgery is old or new.
If old, the idea is, then, depending who wrote it, they may have had access to information on JtR, they may have BEEN Jack the Ripper, trying to have it pinned on another and all sorts of interesting other scenarios. If it's new, I think the general consensus is that it is, at best, a novelty read, but not any real contribution to Ripperology.
If you want to get into why you think it is old or new, this is the place. Since I don't care, I'll leave you all to it.
Stephanie "woman of her word" Loyd |
Author: Chris George
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 08:11 am | | Stephanie:
Here is how I view the contribution that the diary makes. The diary is, in my view, a modern forgery. Having said that, for better or worse, it nevertheless draws attention to Jack the Ripper. Whether we like it or detest it, and I know you and many others wish they had never heard of the blessed thing, the diary does perform the function of spreading the word on Jack the Ripper. It is a way for the neophyte to get a quick appreciation of the case and since the document is, as I have indicated before, a pastiche of the Jack the Ripper letters and other ephemera that have cropped up over the years (e.g., the "Five Whores" poem), items that could not all have originated with Jack, it provides a quick precis of Ripper case and myth. Also, whether we want to believe it or not, it does, as Professor David Cantor has noted, give us an insight into the mind of a killer. Perhaps not an authentic insight, I will admit, but nevertheless a representation of the thoughts of a killer.
Chris "like it or not we have to live with it" George |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 01:11 pm | | Hi all:
At some point someone mentioned the infamous Hannah Koren and graphology: sorry I can't remember who. I scanned in the list below(Feldy p.13 hb.) Take a look at it and see - not if it describes Maybrick but if it describes either or both of the persons who have on these pages been suspected of writing the diary. For convenience I call them "m" and "a." Needless to say all these comments are drawn from the books by Shirley and Feldy plus comments from others who knew them.
· Disturhed, possibly mentally Hard to say.
· Very strong imagination m: tells varied colourfull stories to Feldy and Shirley
· Fluctuating selfesteem. Varying from domineering to deprived m: violent towards wife. Episodes of misery and self-pity.
· Sexual problems - lack of satisfaction Unknown
· Problems with mother image a: Mother dies young, brought up with step-mother. m: unknown.
· Ambivalent feeling about father Unknown.
· Much aggression - also towards self a: forcefull personality. m: apparent previous criminal record, supposed suicide attempts, accused of assault on wife.
· Multiple personality Unknown
· Lack of stability Several different jobs,
· Changes liis mind m:confesses, unconfesses, confesses again.
· Dramatic sense - me as 'victim' both: put themselves in picture as leading character
· Has ideas, is imaginative - but can't always execute ?lots of imagination in diary but some basic mistakes.
· Likes games - sees people as pawns both: tendency to manipulate people.
· On the outside he can control himself - inside is like a volcano which sometime will burst out m: occasional violent acts.
· The crosses - possibly there's a religious link both: Catholic.
· No trust for others both: no trust for each other.
· Hypochondria m: invents illness
· Stubborn Unknown
· Has had disappointments in the emotional area both: acrimonious divorce
· Very strong guilt feelings m: apparent guilt at not being the breadwinner.
· Compulsive thoughts - neuroses - repetitive Unknown.
· Drugs or alcohol? Something physiological m:Heavy drinker. Alchoholic?
But then I don't believe in graphologists!
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Linda
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 01:13 pm | | | There are many reasons why I think the diary is a modern forgery, however here are two important points - Brierly was Florence's only known lover, and the diary makes frequent references to their affair, but they did not meet until December 1888 - the diarist got the year wrong. Also, the diarist refers to Maybrick's brother writing verses. His brother was a songwriter, but he wrote the music not the words, as Maybrick can hardly fail to have known. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 05:01 am | | | Linda: Just to put an alternative viewpoint, I understand that post-"Diary" research has established that Florence and Alfred Brierley met at a party thrown by the Maybricks in late 1887/early 1888. Whether or not they became lovers at that time is not known, of course. There is also a reference to Michael Maybrick likening himself to various great figures of literature, such as Shakespeare. (I think it was something John Baillie Knight said of Michael). Odd that he should have likened himself to prose and poetry writers rather than composers of music. Maybe he did write verse, privately not professionally. How, I wonder, would people interpret that in relation to the authenticity of the "Diary" if it was shown to be true? |
Author: Caz Senior
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 12:20 pm | | Dear Linda and Paul,
The question we could ask is: how well did James want to know about Michael’s musical career? I am extremely close to my brother, who is also very musical, but I can easily yawn and drop off sometimes when he goes deep into the subject of classical music!
Some of the diary comments suggest to me that we could have a serious case of sibling rivalry here, possibly stemming from Mum or Dad Maybrick continually making unfavourable comparisons between the talented Michael and the also-ran James.
If, added to this, James is psychologically unbalanced, he may have ‘not wanted to hear’ how well precious Michael was doing, whether it be in the field of music, lyrics or both.
I think I read somewhere that most of the Victorian middle-classes tended to keep diaries or try their hand at poetry at some time or other—Hardly surprising in the absence of the kind of home entertainment we have available to us now!
As a final thought on the subject, Elton John is a world-famous super-star, but I’ll bet there are thousands of people who don’t realise that he wrote the music, not the words, of all those hit records, though I don’t really know if that’s relevant.
Yours,
Caz Senior (Caroline). |
Author: Peter W.
Tuesday, 19 January 1999 - 11:03 pm | | Ann Barrett wrote it.
Having recently finished with Paul Feldman's wonderful book, I felt that the solution was pretty clear. I don't even believe Mike knew about it until she passed it to him via Tony Devereux. This act seems to have been a form of laundering, unsuccessful as it was. It also explains why Mike, bitter at the marriage break-up, chose to claim the 'glory' for himself. Unfortunately, no-one thought poor old Mike was up to it. But Feldman's respect for Anne is very clear. And she comes across as a very capable woman, capable of producing a pretty poor forgery anyway.
One question, sorry for my naivety. Why does Feldman, in the paperback edition, grandly announce the disappearance of Ann's medical records, as a sort of final word. What has that to do with anything? |
Author: Anonymous
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 05:49 pm | | | I know who wrote it but due to the intrusion it will bring on my family's lives i will not disclose the truth. |
Author: Caroline
Thursday, 11 February 1999 - 06:29 am | | That's very laudable of you, and I promise no sarcasm is intended as you sound sincere.
Could you let me know just one more thing. Do you make any objections, along similar or indeed any lines, regarding our continued search for JtR?
Or would you rather not say?
Any response would be fine, but if none is forthcoming, can we assume it is okay for us to carry on our research, whatever it reveals?
Thanks for your time.
Best wishes,
Caroline
I've just realised that it will be impossible for anyone of us posting here to tell if we get a response from the right person. We have to have a lot of faith, don't we? |
Author: Anonymous
Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 04:01 pm | | | Caroline....i do not expect or care if people believe me or not.Either way i cannot disclose the truth,just imagine what the media intrusion would do to my family's lives,you only have to look at the Barrett's situation.The truth will eventually come out but unfortunatly not from myself.I do know a good deal about the Ripper but no more than anyone else, all i know is who wrote that diary.I do realise people will expect this is a hoax but unfortunatly i can do nothing about that.Best wishes |
Author: Caroline
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 02:07 am | | Dear anonymous,
I feel sorry for you, but I don't really know what to say at this stage. You shouldn't be worrying too much, though, I wouldn't care if my own brother turned out to be a modern-day ripper, I'd frogmarch him down the nick myself! Do you see what I'm trying to say? As for media intrusion, I have been sort of dreading the thought for some time now, but you cannot avoid the inevitable, you just have to live with it the best you can, with the love and support of those who care.
Hope this helps,
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 04:29 pm | | Dear Caroline,no i do not understand what you are trying to say, please excuse me for appearing ignorant.I have a young son and no amount of love & support from my family would shield him away from the hassle of the media.All i can say is the diary is a definate hoax and was written by somebody quite a long time ago,quite a bit longer than some people would think.In a way it is nice to get some of this off my chest.
Love Anon |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 04:45 pm | | It rather depends on the nature of the "proof". If the proof pointed directly at you and your family, then it would probably be difficult to avoid media interest. If it didn't, you could avoid media interest by handing the "proof" over to somebody you could trust not to reveal you as the source.
But what hassle do you anticipate. Mike Barrett courted media attention. He sought it and invited it. If you don't want it, I seriously doubt that you'd get it. At worst you'd have to do no more than tell your story, display your proofs and be done with it. The media simply isn't that interested - it was interested when it thought a hoax was being palmed off as genuine, but I don't think it would have given a tuppeny hoot about a hoax being palmed off as a hoax.
I'm intriqued, though. Why do you think there would be such media interest that it would be intrusive and disturbing to you and your family? |
Author: Rotter
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 04:49 pm | | | Maybe he is using media in the broader sense, meaning not just tabloids but some of the more vitriolic Ripperologists. |
Author: Caroline
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 07:06 pm | | Dear Anon,
Can I let Paul's answer be mine also, I don't have much more to add, except that we have to be strong for our own little ones, no one else can do that for you. Life can be a bastard, I'm afraid, and some hurdles cannot be magicked away, if indeed your one is really so bad.
Caroline |
Author: Anonymous
Monday, 22 February 1999 - 04:25 pm | | | What exactly do you mean by being strong for our little ones??? I do not know who Jack the ripper is,all i know is who wrote that diary.Mr.Barretts situation is a prime example why i cannot let out the truth, he is still being asked by groups to answer questions many years after the diary came too light.The ripper murders attract attention still from many parts of the world and although what i know only confirms who wrote the diary the author i think must have been fairly close to the ripper and this information would undoubtably create a lot of media interest and although i know the information to be correct some quarters would still believe it to be a hoax and i would be in a no win situation. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 05:03 am | | | Anonymous - Mike Barrett invited himself to addess the Liverpool Conference and according to Adam Wood he is pleased to be given the opportunity to address the C&D. He has courted publicity and in any event isn't representative. Look at all the other people who have come forward with information and not attracted any significant media attention. Of course, without knowing the nature of your proofs and the relationship of the author to yourself, it is impossible to say whether you would attract any significant media interest or that said attention would be in any sense adverse. |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 09:13 am | | Little Ones, anon??
You said you had a young son to protect. If your memory is that bad I strongly advise you to check your facts about the diary hoaxer.
Love,
Caroline
P.S. Are you any relation to adrienne, queen of the lower case a.? |
Author: Anonymous
Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 06:13 pm | | | Caroline....if you are going to make stupid comments i will not bother.Of course i remember i have a son, so i have to be strong for my son do i??? How will intrusion into his life affect this?? Surely by keeping the information private i am being strong for him am i not??? This will be my last post on the subject Caroline as comments like yours are a prime example of why i will keep my knowledge to myself, it is a shame as it did help to discuss the subject.I did not expect your idiotic remarks and believe you are a very rude woman. Goodbye and good luck to the other ripperoligists especially Mr.Begg who i know is a very knowledgeable gentleman. |
Author: Jesse
Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 09:02 pm | | | I do believe the diary to be genuine. If some of the detail is perhaps in error, does that totally negate the rest of the text, that is in turn very accurate? T Here's hoping that all the correct facts can be made accessible to all Ripperologists! |
Author: Rip
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 05:57 pm | | hello everybody
I'm agree sometimes with Feldman, but the time had gone away: please look at >what a playing hell<, there are not more an one information, but i will offer more. |
Author: Rip
Friday, 05 April 2002 - 05:49 pm | | Feldman's >The Final Chapter< is full of arguments to provide JM as the author of the diary and to take this to identify JM with JTR.
My critic is - in principle -that Feldman take the conclusion in the premises, so that he presupposes, what he want to prove. All his attempts to disproving his thesis: not more likeley are positive proves. What I mean with ´this?
Exmapel: Sometimes he provide reasons for, that Florri knew that her husband JTR, but that there are reasons to keep secret of her knowledge. On the other hand: her mother make pressure with something.
And very more courios: JM writes what his wife told him about her life, implied her relationships with other men's:
I'm not sure, indeed, but this are points by my site full of negative intuition |
|
|
|
|
