|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Ten Year Reflection
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: Diary of Jack the Ripper:
Ten Year Reflection
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 12:07 pm |        | Message for Peter Birchwood,
Peter, you gave us the intriguing information that three days ago you found a copy of the relevant volume of the Sphere Guide at the BookCellar in Welshpool. You said it was secondhand but in good condition and ‘when laid flat opened at the Crashaw quote’.
Could you elaborate on this please? Firstly, what exactly did you mean by ‘when laid flat’? I’m trying to picture how a book (was it hardback or paperback, by the way?) falls opens by itself to a particular page when laid flat, in a closed position. But if that’s not quite what you meant, can you run it past me again please?
Secondly, am I right in assuming you purchased this volume, since it represents proof that the defect is not unique to Mike’s copy? If so, the obvious and most productive course of action will now be for you and Melvin to get together with your volume 2s and do a direct comparison of the defects. But meanwhile it would be very useful if you could describe for us in more detail what appears to have caused your volume to fall open in this way, and if any other pages are similarly affected, so we can at least compare it with Melvin’s description of Mike’s copy.
I found some posts in the archives relating to the defect. Here are extracts from three of them:
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through November 15, 2000
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 10:40 am
I might be wrong, but I don't think it would be likely that two copies of the Sphere would have the same binding defect. The copies I've seen have straight hot-glue binding along the spine (ie., they're not sewn with signatures, etc). Melvin Harris used the term 'defect', but I suspect what he meant was that the glue on the spine was merely cracked so that the book opened in two or three different places. Maybe this "cracking" happened due to overhandling...
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Diary 10 Year Anniversary; Reflections: Archive through 16 April 2002
Author: Robert Smith
Friday, 12 April 2002 - 11:38 am
REFLECTIONS UPON THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY
3. Did the Sphere volume fall open at page 184 (the page with the quote from Crashaw) when Mike first saw it?
I would like to take Melvin up on having the book binding expert examine it. He could at least describe any imperfections likely to have occurred at the time of manufacture. I think he would have a hard time establishing, whether the book fell open at page 184 from the start, or only by the time when Melvin and Alan Gray first saw it in Autumn 1994.
Robert Smith
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!: Archive through 27 February 2002
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 06:44 am
THE ILLUSIONS ONCE MORE MELVIN HARRIS
Dear Robert Smith:
As for the Sphere book, it was given to Gray by Mike. Gray has now given it to me. Yes, you can certainly borrow it and show it to anyone you like. I will set out my terms, together with some extra details of this book's saga, as soon as I have some more free time.
So, Peter, if and when you arrange with Melvin to compare your defects, could you please ask if he will soon have time to set out his terms for lending Mike’s copy to Robert? Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 09:45 pm | | Caz--Thanks, but the above message that you posted by me is nearly two years old. Since then, Melvin has posted on more than one occasion that the copy in question is a hard-backed edition with a defect in the sewing. But I suspect you must know this, so I'm not entirely sure of your reasons for posting the above.
But I'm still very skeptical that a defective copy of a group of essays about 17th Century poetry is a hot item, with dozens of copies floating around in the hands of forgers.
So yes, the offer for Brick Lane Curry still stands
Cheers. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 07:32 am | | Hi RJ,
I had trouble finding Melvin's detailed description of the defect. I only remember seeing the one, and thought I recalled something about uneven glue distribution. My search for that specific phrase didn't turn up anything, so I tried 'glue' which brought up your post among others, but not Melvin's. I have now found what I was looking for, but as you can see, Melvin refers to an 'excess of adhesive'. Sorry, my memory is not as photographic as it once was! 
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001: Archive through May 16, 2001
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 02:29 pm
From Melvin Harris:
The Sphere book owned by Mike Barrett is a hardback volume!
As such it is a stitched section work that suffers from an excess of adhesive on at least 27 pages. This varies in severity: pages 438-9 are so tied together that the full text cannot be read. And such a spread is found on p. 183. It is only a small spread, but is enough to bias the action of p. 184, since that page falls at the start of a new stitched-section at p. 185. As a result. p. 184 is free from a right-hand pull by 185 but is open to a left-hand pull by pp 182-3 at its rear. hence it will tend to open at p. 184.
Love,
Caz
PS Message coming up from Keith which, oddly enough, adds a bit more spice to your 'hot item'!
Mango chutney anyone? |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 07:42 am | | From Keith Skinner
I would just like to add a tiny bit of information to the present discussion speculating about a possible binding fault or defect in the Sphere volumes.
On the morning of February 27th 2002 I went with my lady to the Liverpool Central Library and took her to the International Library section where, allegedly, Mike Barrett was meant to have traced the source of O costly intercourse...
Coral's immediate response, on surveying the mass of books in front of her was, "no way!", to the notion of Mike Barrett studiously ploughing through them. I took her to the English Literary History shelf which had three hardback copies of the Sphere History - Volume 2, (a 1970 edition and two 1986 editions). Coral took a 1986 copy off the shelf and opened it at random. It opened at page 184 which contains the Crashaw quote. The other two volumes were not checked because, now that Coral knew which page the quote appeared on, ( I already knew but had not told her), the experiment would be invalidated - although I had no planned intention of conducting any sort of test when we went to the Library.
The sad aspect in all of this is that, without Peter Birchwood's totally independent discovery, I would not, for obvious reasons, have been able to offer this detailed account to interested Board Readers, such is the climate of suspicion against those of us who are still uncertain about the historical significance or status, (if any), of both Diary and Watch. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 11 July 2002 - 12:21 pm | | Hi Keith:
Thanks for the message and for taking the time and trouble to check the possible faulty binding problem. Does this simplify the story or make it more complex? In a print-run of, at the least, several hundred where two copies of this particular edition appear to have a propensity to open at random at this page does this make it more likely that Mike's also had this problem?
I applaud your continuing efforts to verify points in Mike's story and presumably other matters in the Affair of the Debatable Diary (could this be a case for Perry Mason?)
I did mention earlier in a message to Robert Smith the whereabouts of Sarah Robertson on the various census dates. Am I correct in beleiving that the only date where we have no idea so far of her whereabouts is that of the 1861 census? Do you have any opinions as to why she never appears with any children who could be hers and Maybricks? And have you any thoughts of checking out the Sunderland Parish Records for her baptism to verify if the date on the "Darling Peggy" inscription could be right? |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 11 July 2002 - 01:06 pm | | Hi, Keith and Caz:
Thank you so much, Keith, for confirming that on February 27, 2002, you and Coral Atkins located a copy of the Sphere Guide to Literature in the Liverpool Central Library (Volume 2, 1986) and that Coral found it opened automatically at page 184, containing the Crashaw quote, because of a binding fault, as did the copy in the possession of Mike Barrett as well as the copy recently purchased by Peter Birchwood in Welshpool. This is valuable information.
I don't recall reading though that Barrett stated that he found the quote in the library's "International Library section." I am of course familiar with the Liverpool Central Library on William Brown Street having been brought up, as you know, in the city of Liverpool, though it is some years since I was on the premises. It seems to me though bizarre why anyone would claim to have found such a book on English literature in the international section since, as I recall, there should be an English literature section quite separate to the part of the library devoted to international studies. Any comment on this strange claim, Keith?
By the way, thank you, Caz, for reposting the old posts from Melvin Harris about his claim about the binding defect, and for as ever being the intermediary between Keith and these boards. Melvin did, by the way, make the exact same claim in the interview I did with him for Ripper Notes issue no. 4. It is good to see his claim about the binding defect backed up by independent investigations by Skinner & Atkins and by Birchwood.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 12 July 2002 - 08:28 am | | Hi Chris,
No problem at all, my pleasure.
I will of course be sending the diary posts to Keith as usual, so he will see the latest queries from you and Peter.
Hi Peter,
While I endeavour to get answers for you from Keith, could you please address the questions put to you recently by Paul Begg, Chris and myself. As you can appreciate, we are anxious to learn as much as possible about the defective Sphere volumes, and the circumstances surrounding Mike's discovery of the Crashaw quote in one or more of them.
So, have you had any response yet from Melvin Harris regarding his terms for lending Mike's copy to Robert? And when can we assume that no news on the Dangar files front means they contain no confirmation that Mike knew the quote was by Crashaw, and where it could be found, before the end of September 1994?
Thanks.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 12 July 2002 - 09:34 am | | From Keith Skinner To Peter Birchwood and Chris George
Dear Peter and Chris
Thank you very much for your messages. Please forgive my responses for being so brief.
Sphere Book
(Peter) – I simply have no idea of whether this simplifies the story or makes it more complex! The nature of the book which Seth Linder and myself are currently preparing, chronicling the ten year investigation into both Diary and Watch, is that we are presenting this type of detail and hard fact, honestly and we hope accurately, without drawing any conclusions or making any judgements. The crucial element in Mike Barrett’s identification of the source for the Crashaw quote is precisely when he discovered it, (if he did), and the circumstances under which he discovered it, (again – if he did.)
(Chris) – Mike Barrett never claimed he found the Sphere Book in the International Library. That is where the English Literature section has now been relocated since your days as a young Liverpudlian ne’er do well in the 1920s!  Apologies for wrong footing you.
Sarah Robertson
(Peter) – The Sarah Roberston investigation was one aspect of Paul Feldman’s research in which I did take a special interest. Other areas of Feldy’s unorthodox investigation, which I considered to be ill judged or too speculative, (but which Feldy was convinced were vitally important clues to pursue), I distanced myself from. Melvyn Fairclough, employed by Feldy on a daily basis, had the unenviable task of following up a lot of Feldy’s bewildering deductive reasoning and equally bewildering conclusions. I concentrated on what I believed to be historically constructive lines of enquiry which might just increase our knowledge about James Maybrick.
I do have a huge file on Sarah Robertson into which has been lately deposited a copy of Gertrude Blackiston’s birth certificate – identified by you and missed by four researchers, including myself! Which is not a reassuring or encouraging note to tell you that I did a search for Sarah in the Sunderland Parish Registers, (deposited in Tyne & Wear Archives), back in December 1994. Clearly, I could not have traced a baptism for Sarah Robertson, but in light of the apparent interest in Sarah, I’ll reassess the information contained in the file.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 12 July 2002 - 11:25 am | | Hi Keith and Caz:
Keith, thanks for providing the clarification of who did what between Melvyn Fairclough and yourself in terms of the research for Paul Feldman. Why should I be surprised to learn that you were doing the substantive research of concentrating on what could be learned about James Maybrick and Sarah Robertson and other worthwhile research, while Melvyn had the task of "following up a lot of Feldy’s bewildering deductive reasoning and equally bewildering conclusions"???!
The only reason that I can think for relocating the English literature in the international section of the Liverpool Central Library on William Brown Street, I should think, must be to accomodate the thirst for the gems of English literature of the foreign sailors who arrive in the city with copies of the complete works of Keats, Shakespeare, and Joanna Trollope in their duffelbags. Perhaps then we should be looking for a Malay sailor with a predeliction for Crashaw???!!
Have a great weekend both of you.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 12 July 2002 - 06:06 pm | | Hi Keith:
I note that you did look in Sunderland Parish records for the birth/baptism of Sarah Ann. The family of Alexander Hay Robertson and Sarah Pell consisted of:
Sarah Elizabeth born 28/4/1811
Ann born 10/1/1813
George Frederick born 22/10/1815
Christiana Lindsay born 8/11/1817
Alice born 24/12/1819
Mary Livingstone born 17/1/1822
Margaret Knight born 9/8/1824
Alexander Hay White born 7/10/1827
If we assume that our Sarah Ann is born between 1835 and 1845 then her parent could be any of the above.
Did you look only in the Parish Church records? The reason that I ask is that the first child, Sarah Elizabeth Robertson was definitely baptised in the Robinson Lane/St. Georges Presbyterian Church Sunderland and it seems likely that all the others were as well. This could well be the site of the baptism of Sarah Ann. |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Saturday, 13 July 2002 - 03:05 pm | | Peter Birchwood,
Regarding Sarah Ann Robertson. Our research has shown her on the 1881 census living at 237 Queens Road Nth Deptford St Paul Kent.
The census readout is as follows:
Christiana Corcous widow aged 59 born Sunderland.
Sarah A Robertson widow aged 35 born Sunderland.
Gertrude B Corcous aged 8 born Portsmouth.
George Smith aged 14 born Sunderland.
Ann Weston aged 17 born Calne.
Sarah Ann is given as niece of Christiana,
Gertrude as daughter of Christiana,
George as nephew of Christiana and Ann as a domestic servant.
Notice Christiana is Corcous and not Conconi as in Shirley's book. Also Sarah Ann Robertson is given as WIDOW so we must presume she married a Mr Robertson. So what was her maiden name?
A&S |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 13 July 2002 - 05:41 pm | | Andy and Sue:
Thanks for your email.
I did point out the information on the 1881 census to Shirley and to people on these boards some years ago. The fact that the info on that census is still conspicuous by its absence in Shirley's 1998 edition is very sloppy as by that time the LDS surname index (by counties) was out on fiche and the CD would be published within a few months.
The family in Deptford could have been found by checking Sarah's name in the index but I suspect that the reason it wasn't found is that this part of Deptford is indexed as Kent and the researchers may only have checked Middlesex and Surrey. Corcous is of course a transcription error; not an unforgivable matter when you consider the size of the operation to transcribe the census. And Druitt himself is misspelled and only findable when you check Mr. Valentine in Blackheath.
Although it's possible that Sarah was the widow of a Mr. Robertson, she does also appear as a spinster Robertson on the 1851 census. The family may well have had Scottish connections (Robertson is uncommon in Durham the local variant being Robson.) It's interesting that the form of words quoted by Shirley (p 39) "Sarah Ann Maybrick otherwise Robertson..." is typically Scottish, as the maiden name of a married woman is something that she keeps all her life and is often used in business and legal matters.
The matter of Gertude B. "Corcous" has been aired exhaustively on these boards and Keith does refer to it in his latest post. Suffice it to say that she was a daughter of Thomas Conconi's friend, George Frederic Conconi, an Admiralty clerk. George and his wife Emily died young and their daughter Emily Gertrude was brought up by the Conconi's.
George Smith is presumably a child of one of Christiana's married sisters whose names I have mentioned earlier.
Lastly, St. Georges' Chapel Robinson Lane Sunderland where at least one and probably all of the Robertsons were baptised was Presbyterian but later became part of the United Reform Church and its records are available at Durham Record Office. |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Sunday, 14 July 2002 - 04:58 am | | Hello Peter. Thanks for the reply re Sarah Ann Robertson. If the dates tie up on the respective census returns there seems some descrepancies.As you say she is given as a spinster on the 1851 but she would have only been aged 4 or 5 then. In 1863 when she is first linked with the name Maybrick she is still only 18 years old.
According to the 1871 census Sarah is given as still living with the Conconi's in Bromley, Shirley's book states that Maybrick is no longer in residence there. How do we know he ever lived there anyway? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 14 July 2002 - 03:14 pm | | Hi Andy and Sue:
According to Shirley, Sarah is aged 13 in 1851. Although the ages of adults in this census were usually rounded off, ages of minors were normally pretty correct. This age would make her born about 1838. i can't understand why you would think her to be 4 or 5 unless you are relying on the 1891 census age.
In 1858 (not 1863) she is supposedly 18 therefore born about 1840. We don't know where she was in 1861 and I do not have the details of the 1871 census at hand. In 1881 she's 35 therefore born about 1846 and as I said, in 1891 she is 44 and born about 1847. She seems to reduce her age slightly as she gets older. My guess would be that she's likely born about 1840 which means she's either the daughter of George Frederick Robertson or the illegitimate daughter of one of his sisters.
Shirley does say reasonably enough after quoting the codicil of Thomas Conconi's will that "Whether the codicil means that Maybrick was also living with the family is unclear." We don't know that he ever lived in London and all the evidence (such as it is) shows him only as living in Virginia or Liverpool. Old Hall Street was his business address and by its use rather than a personal address we can assume that the Maybrick/Robertson split happened before 1868.
Previously I did mention that I suspected some Scottish connection in the Robertson family. This is confirmed by the marriage of Alexander Hay Robertson (Christiana's father) to Sarah Pell at Edinburgh, 13th August 1810. |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Monday, 15 July 2002 - 03:48 am | | Peter B.
Thanks for putting out query into perspective.
And a good clear answer.
Yes, we took the details from the 1881 census, so therefore quoted the dates from that.
It just seemed strange that the 1881 census was ommitted from the book, when others were quoted.
Perhaps it was because the 1881 dates clashed with the others? |
Author: Graham Jay
Monday, 15 July 2002 - 08:06 am | | Hi,
Can anybody tell me if there has been an "in-depth" study done of Michael Maybrick? |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 03:18 pm | | Hi everyone....I just finished reading the Diary for the first time ever. (I haven't been doing much of "Jack" lately since I have started a quilt sewing projecct) I never hastened to read the diary before now because of all the "hoax" comments I had read, it just didn't seem important to get to it in a hurry. I was quite impressed with this diary. If it is a hoax, what a fine hoax it is. I have two big problems with it....one is the "breast factor"...he makes a big deal out of describing where the breasts were and its wrong... and you would think Mr. "Fry Up A Kidney for Supper" would at least have given us an update about where the kidneys were instead. I find it incredible that anyone who committed MJK's murder would only have the few things to say about it that he did. But then again, as is often repeated on these boards, why try to rationalize the irrational?
My second big problem with the diary is the phrase "Am I not a clever fellow?" and its many variants, written over and over in the diary. It sounds absolutely silly to me and just rings false. It would have seemed silly in Victorian times, in my humble opinion. Its hard for me to explain why this bothers me, but something about it reduces the diary's realism for me. Maybe someone else can explain it better.
Other than these two things though....what an interesting piece of work. The state of mind revealed in the diary seems very real. You can feel the almost unbearable stress this person is suffering. The preoccupation with his "medicines" is quite real, worrying about getting it and his elation at finding a new source as well as his need to document how much he is taking (in a roundabout way). His boast of being able to take "more than anyone alive"....I had to smile in that I have heard addicts often say these exact same words. In almost every entry he is compelled to update what body parts are numb lately as a hypochondriac would do. In short, it is very tempting to believe this is the real deal.
I can tell from reading the entries here that I need to find out more about Mike Barrett and the stuff that has happened with him.
I find it an absolute outrage that Florence Maybrick was convicted of his murder (I had never studied that case before, either). This poor woman's life was ruined. I have said a few prayers in her behalf since learning her story.
And finally I want to ask....I understand that arsenic supposedly was being used by JM as a kind of aphrodisiac....but was he getting high off the stuff? I find it unusual he would be compelled to take the stuff every day (before addiction happened) if he wasn't getting some sort of benefit other than sexual energy. What about strychnine? Would he obtain some kind of "buzz" from that also? Do you think either of these drugs could cause psychosis, temporary or otherwise?
Another thing I would like to list that makes the diary seem real is his extreme of hate/love/hate towards Florie. Repeatedly she is called "the bitch", "the whore", then all of a sudden she is "my dearest Bunny"....I think it is very demonstrative of the thin line between love and hate. I don't think it would be unusual at all for someone to have this sudden change of heart towards a spouse. That visit with Fuller must have been one hell of a visit!
Also,I was struck by how suddenly reality seemed to intrude on Maybrick's violent writings. The man is writing verse and striking them out like a madman, the mania of his rhymes is evident. Then all of a sudden...KABLAM! "I cannot live without my medicine."....this line tells me he has had some kind of bipolar crash. Reality has suddenly come back and he is suddenly thinking of the future, he's thinking of jail and life without the medicine, realizing what would happen. From the perspective of addiction I can testify this is a true phenomena...abuse, abuse, abuse without a care and suddenly it crashes on you..."hey, I might not be able to roll along like this forever...what if I get arrested?" Then anxiety washes over like a wave...
So I learned a lot from the diary, but I cannot say whether it is for real for certain. Maybe someone like "George" forged it...he knew Maybrick was the Ripper and tried to find a way to reveal it without him giving his friend up...pure speculation though. Maybe the thing is real. One thing is for certain, I do take Maybrick much more seriously as a suspect after having read it. If it is true, the Maybricks were probably the most dysfunctional family ever, even more dysfunctional than the Osbournes.
Love,
Lita |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 04:30 pm | | Hello Brenda/Lita
Interesting post.
I have to take issue with you saying that the diarist got the location of Mary Kelly's breasts wrong.
Firstly, there is reason to believe that it could have been Dr Bond who got the location wrong, after all John McCarthy, the second man on the scene and the first man to enter the room, described them as being on the table.
Secondly the diarist makes the intriguing statement of "I thought of leaving them by the whore's feet".
I have argued in the past that maybe both Bond AND McCarthy were right, maybe pieces of breast were on the table and the bed.
Paul Begg made an astute observation not too long ago - which was that IF the diary is a forgery then it's author(s) would have had to wait until Dr Bond's report was published in 1989 before completing their masterpiece, this being because of the above reference to 'leaving them by the whore's feet'.
Thus we have concrete proof that the diary is either genuine or is a modern forgery post 1989.
You mention the kidneys and what the diarist "should" have done.
I have always had a problem with what the diarist "should" have done.
If the diarist gives us 'too much' information the detractors simply wave two or three source books and say "It's all in there".
If he gives us too little, they say "Well, it can't be verified".
The diarist can't win, either way.
But why would James Maybrick be thinking of what people would make of his diary in a hundred years time?
He wouldn't, would he?
It wasn't even written on a daily basis, there didn't seem much rhyme nor reason to it, almost ad hoc one might say.
So I don't think we can criticise the diarist for errors of omission.
I agree with you about your interpretation of the diarist's view of his "medicine". Such knowledge as you describe is quite specialist and 'obscure', yet the diarist gets it right time after time after time.
However,I don't have the problem that you do with "Am I not a clever fellow?"
It sounds positively Victorian to me - and you should be comforted to know that Shirley Harrison researched all the potential anomalies with the language of the diary and was able to prove that all the phrases used were in existence back in 1888.
Not so sure that George forged it!
I am not quite swayed one way or the other on whether or not Florie was guilty of murder. In all honesty, if I had been on the jury and been presented with the evidence they saw I would have convicted her too.
I don't mean the letter to Brierley, or the fly papers, - the compelling evidence for me was that she admitted adding something to James' prescribed medicine, in fact she said it was a powder that James had told her to add - but the powder could not possibly have dissolved in the solution.
Therefore it must have been a liquid that was added to James' prescribed medicine, so clearly Florie wasn't being truthful about something.
Good luck with the duvet!
Peter |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 09:46 pm | | Hi Peter,
I think what bothers me the most about the "Am I not a clever fellow" phrase is the volume of times it is used. In a way it seems like someone trying to imitate the mood of the "Dear Boss" letter...I'm not very good at explanation of "feelings" so I hope you understand what I am driving at. Likewise the little "ha ha"'s, always underlined, it just seems like someone wo could have seen the "Dear Boss" letter and is trying to recreate the language, the "feel" of the letter ("mood" was probably the best word to use). On the other hand, maybe its truly just the way this guy talked and thought.
The items you brought up about the breasts were interesting...I had forgotten McCarthy's words and was thinking exclusively of Bond's when I made that statement. One would HOPE the doctor would get it right, but we all make mistakes. I loved your idea of "pieces in both places", it makes perfect sense and of course it could have happened that way.
The rest of diary seems so authentic as to make the blood run cold. I am almost tempted to drop my Joe Barnett campaign now, so you know it has made quite an impression on me...( I did say "ALMOST"!)
I was reading the other threads concerning the 40 pages of missing diary that is going to covered in a new book...I can't wait! These pages are either going to totally support the idea that the diary is real or its going to shoot the whole thing down the drain.
On a side note, the book talks about the Victorian scrap book with the heavy absorbent paper....my mother purchased just such a scrap book in the 1950's. I was struck by the similarities between the two...but I don't think the book is a hoax from modern times. I guess I commenting more upon how little the product changed since that time. I have looked for one like this in vain for a scrapbooking project, but all you find now is pages resembling photo album pages.
Anyone have any blank Victorian scrapbooks laying around??? ;-)
Love, Lita
(p.s. my real name is Brenda but my middle name is Lita and that's the one I use mostly but I answer to either so whichever comes to your mind first!) |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 08:06 am | | Hi Lita,
In Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, there are several references to arsenic eaters other than James, who told of their own experiences with this 'medicine' after his death.
I don't know how much of the stuff needs to be taken, or how regularly, or for how long, before a user becomes addicted. There is reason to believe that James began taking arsenic as an alternative treatment for malaria, because the usual quinine didn't suit him. I don't know whether, apart from its documented aphrodisiac effects, it gives a 'buzz' as such - but there is evidence that regular users can feel unwell, or find certain symptoms returning, as soon as they try to lower the dose or stop taking it. It has even been said that withdrawal could prove fatal.
One arsenic eater cited in Ryan said he had taken the stuff daily for thirteen years, but when at times he was forced to discontinue the practice he 'immediately felt an extraordinary decline of physical and mental strength. He felt sure that Maybrick, deprived of his powders from the beginning of his illness, had lost the strength essential to his recovery.'
Another described how he had been bitten by a rattlesnake twenty years previously and had taken arsenic to hasten the death he was expecting. 'Instead of a speedy end, he obtained relief. Since then, he said, his arm swelled up once every twenty-four hours until relieved by his daily dose.'
There is certainly plenty of indication from the testimony of various chemists, doctors and other acquaintances, that James was increasing his intake over time, obtaining the stuff from a variety of sources, legitimate and otherwise, and whenever he got the chance. Yet no arsenic was found to have passed out of his body in the two or three days before he died, when Florie was suspected of trying to poison him with it, despite the fact that, once taken, it passes swiftly through the body, doing its work on the way.
Ryan also gives the information that, according to the treatise on the case by MacDougall, 'arsenic is quite tasteless to the ordinary person but has a strong taste to habitual arsenic eaters, so that it would be almost impossible to poison one who had the habit...'
Of course, those who believe the diary is a modern forgery also believe Ryan was a major source of the Maybrick information, so the forger would have absorbed all this too before committing pen to paper.
I have seen no evidence that arsenic can turn an otherwise 'normal' person into a deranged killer. Neither have I seen any data on the effects of prolonged, frequent or heavy doses on those who are already disturbed in some way. With no documented cases to compare with what the diary gives us, I can only assume that a modern forger would have had to rely on his/her imagination to conjure up this portrayal of a psychopathic arsenic addict. And we may never know how near or far from the mark it really is.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 09:33 pm | | Hi Caz,
Thanks for the arsenic addiction info. It sure seems like a weird drug to be addicted to, but if Maybrick got hooked treating what he thought was a legit medical condition, then I guess there was no stopping after that. I guess arsenic is something you can't be weaned off of either.
I've heard before that strychnine is/was/has been added to LSD before, I've even been told strychnine is THE hallucinagen in modern LSD concoctions. Maybe he was strychnine psychotic.
I have a lot of uncomfortable feelings about Michael Maybrick, also. He was not portrayed as a little angel by any means and his treatment of Florie was absolutely bone-chilling. I wouldn't put it past him to do a little diary-forging just for jolly, wouldn't you? LOL. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 07 August 2002 - 10:44 am | | Hi Lita,
Again according to Ryan, after Florie's trial, but in the days before the reprieve and commutation, the Home Secretary heard testimony from Captain Irving, who had dined at Battlecrease on 1st May 1889:
A short while before Maybrick's death, he had met Edwin and, knowing that Maybrick was ill, said, 'What on earth is the matter with Jim?' Edwin replied, 'Oh, he's killing himself with that damned strychnine'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 10:19 am | | Hello Lita!
"These pages are either going to totally support the idea that the diary is real or its going to shoot the whole thing down the drain".
Regarding the 40 "new" pages that Mike Barrett claims to have and Keith Skinner says he has seen some of ...
I've been trying to imagine a scenario whereby the "new" pages could even possibly be genuine - and it is becoming increasingly difficult.
But that doesn't bother me - Mike Barrett lost all credibility a long while ago. I think it rather likely that Mike is just having one last roll of the dice at making some cash from the diary.
The story of the 40 pages will be interesting, no doubt - but it will not cast any new light on the diary as it now is.
Without meaning to appear as though I have made my mind up before even seeing the 40 new pages - I fully expect them to be faked in Mike Barrett's handwriting and written in Diamine ink then baked in the oven at Gas Mark 5 for 40 minutes.
I don't see how Mike Barrett forging 40 "new" pages can in any way have a bearing on the "Is the diary genuine?" debate.
Cheers
Peter |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 04:12 pm | | Peter,
Even if the new pages are in the same handwriting and the same ink type you will insist the "new" pages are not geniune?
Now, who is the closed-minded one?
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Daniel J Ryan
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 12:30 pm | | Good day,
I am confused as many years ago I believed that the case was solved by Stephen Knight.
These questions are for the Maybrick Diary supporters to perhaps clarify.
a) I read in Patricia Cornwell's recent book on Sickert that the Maybrick Diary was proved a fake by her paper expert. (not the ink expert so often debated in these pages).
Is there any truth in this?
b) Is it also true to say that the "great new smoking gun fact" in the Diary is based upon the positioning of Mary Kelly's breasts.
c) And finally for those who have seen the Michael Winner video. The writing on the wall for the word Juwes/James is different from the previously released copy. Were there two versions of the writing copied by the policeman? or is this a case of film maker's sensationalism?
regards,
Dan |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 10:03 am | | Daniel
a) No.
b) No.
c) Are you serious?
To expand on a) ...Patricia hasn't had access to the diary, therefore cannot have conducted tests on it, therefore cannot have proven it to be a fake. Her other tests on various ripper and Sickert letters are impressive, but sadly she lets herself down on the issue of the diary.
As for b) ... sadly not, Daniel. If you going to argue the diary, then the very first thing you should do is at least read it. If you did you would be aware that the diarist says "...I thought of leaving them by the whore's feet/but the table it was bear/so I went and left them there.
In one sentence the diarist has suggested that he left the breasts on the table (which is exactly where McCarthy says they were), but also intriguingly suggested he thought of leaving them by Kelly's feet, which is where the unreliable testimony of Bond says they were.
Bond is unreliable because he makes gross factual errors in the description of the crime scene.
To my mind Maybrick may have placed the breasts originally by the feet, then moved them. It may even be possible that some breast tissue remained by the feet (although this isn't likely, as the photographs of Kelly's crime scene clearly show that there are NO breasts by her feet) and some was transferred to the table.
Bond would have us believe that there was a breast under Kelly's head, also. Well, do you see it? Go look at the pictures ...
Now to c) What possible significance could this have?
Happy reading
Peter |
Author: Daniel J Ryan
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 09:39 am | | Peter,
thanks for your response re: the Ripper Diary. a) if Cornwell has not had access to the diary then how could she say what she says? Her blues I think.
b) I reiterate, is this the only smoking gun theory in the diary? (I have read the diary, nothing else strikes me, except a great knowledge of the Maybrick family whereabouts)
c) I wish to determine whether the Michael Winner video was involved in deception. If Juwes is rewritten to look like James, then another supporting "coincidence" disappears. However if there were two versions, one of which looked like James then there is a positive supporting piece of evidence. The James are not the men that will be blamed for nothing (JK Stephen and J Maybrick). Otherwise, the whole phrase merely supports the Stephen Knight solution. (Hiram's murderers).As does FM on the wall, meaning Free Mason, as opposed to Florrie Maybrick.
I am currently left with one element that is very odd. S.E. Mibrack in the Charing Cross Hotel. (No such surname but very close to Maybrick)
For your consolation Peter, I think that the Ripper Diary is just about the best book forgery ever. Its provenance is zero. I live in Liverpool and read the early sources, it was reported as being found by workmen under the floorboards when Battlecrease House was being modernised. MMM!!!. This alone doesn't prove its a fake though.
Peter, can you list for me where the ripper diaries contain new evidence of crime scene knowledge, outside of Mary Kelly's breasts?
To place Mary Kelly's breasts on the table, when they were nowhere else to be seen, isn't rocket science.
You see because so many people cannot prove the diary one way or the other then I could be convinced that Maybrick was part of the ripper gang. But at the moment not so.
thanks,
Dan Ryan |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 11:16 am | | Mr. Ryan--Our old chum Peter Wood is a diary supporter, please take his opinions with a pint or two.
His main premise is ludicrous--that Dr. Bond, a police surgeon with twenty-one years experience in post mortem reporting [for A Division] is "unreliable." On the otherhand, a Jack the Ripper diary brought foward by a heavy-drinking scrap dealer and his enigmatic wife, is reliable.
The victim's breasts were not on the table. Horribly enough, those are flaps "from the abdomen & thighs." It is a clear error in the diary. One breast was found by Kelly's right foot, the other under her head. Peter tries to make the most of the fact that the diary mentions placing them at the 'whore's feet.' Like the point system in the old radio show "My Word" he's giving the diarist one mark for a clever effort.
I give Peter one-and-a-half marks for undying faith despite overwhelming evidence.
Incidently, this is a "smoking gun" because Bond's post mortem report was not known until 1987. The diary made the same error that newspaper reports [and Ripper books] had been making for 99 years. Funny that.
One clever argument voiced by the diary supporter in the past is that Maybrick was so strung out on strichnine that he didn't remember his own actions until he read about them in the papers the next day. Hence the error. With clever supporters such as these, the diarist didn't need to be very good.
As for 'S.E. Mibrac' what Paul Feldman didn't tell you is that this Inkeeper's Notice is in regards to clothing articles left in a hotel previous to the Summer of 1887. This notice has nothing whatsoever to do with the Whitechapel inquires in the Autumn of 1888.
Best wishes, RJP |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 11:55 am | | Hi RJ,
'One clever argument voiced by the diary supporter in the past is that Maybrick was so strung out on strichnine that he didn't remember his own actions until he read about them in the papers the next day. Hence the error. With clever supporters such as these, the diarist didn't need to be very good.'
Couple of corrections here, RJ. Your comments are based on one of my observations - not arguments - and I am neither clever nor a diary supporter! I only said the killer of MJK could have needed to get the details of his 'glut' in Miller's Court from the papers - not that this is what happened, or that it makes the diary Maybrick's. And my observation doesn't hinge on the killer using dodgy substances either.
Albert Fish was 'so strung out' on murder that on the same day he invited a young girl into his house, killed her and hacked her body to pieces, he couldn't recall the sex of his victim and thought it had been a boy - presumably realising his mistake as soon as he regained his 'right mind', looked again at the body parts or heard again about the girl's fate from another source - like the papers.
With non-supporters using another serial killer to support a fairly simple observation, I agree - the diarist didn't need to be very good.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Daniel J Ryan
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 06:26 pm | | Mr. Palmer,
thank you for the information re the S.E. Mibrack listing. You see I did follow this line of enquiry many years ago regarding the Charing Cross Hotel, as it was directly connected to a man sought in Liverpool.
If the name list fitted the date then there would be a genuine connection.
Similarly my questions re James and Juwes. Both James Maybrick and James Stephen came from Liverpool.
I can now return safely to the accepted final solution.
Kind Regards,
Dan |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 02:19 am | | Caz--Thanks for the correction, but honestly, I wasn't thinking of your Albert Fish argument so much as the somewhat generic [and now rather ancient, perhaps abandoned] suggestion that Maybrick operated under a drug-induced haze of strychnine and arsenic.
In regards to Fish, I am happy to report that I can't even begin to get inside his depraved mind, but can only point out that dozens if not hundreds of murderers have been able to fully recount to arresting police officers intimate details of their crimes, lead them to murder sites years later, &tc.
I suppose a traumatic loss of memory is a possibility worth considering--however, it begs a question, viz. would it be a flourish of an extemely subtle nature or would it be merely foolhardiness for a forger to knowingly make a error in reporting the crime scene? Too risky; so I plump for "unknowingly," which leaves the reference to the feet an unpleasant oddity, another remarkable example of the forger's ability to keep his [her?] neck out of the noose.
And, no, despite what you say, you're clever enough.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Chris Phillips
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 04:01 am | | Just out of curiosity, if the suggestion about memory loss came from Caroline Morris, and she is not a diary supporter - how do the diary supporters explain this inaccuracy?
If it can't be explained (and I can't imagine how it can be), it seems enough to destroy the diary's authenticity, even if all the other evidence is disregarded. |
Author: Michael Thompson
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 04:29 am | | Referring to the title of this thread, "Ten Year Reflection", here we are (actually more than ten years) later and concrete proof either way of whether the diary is guenuine or not has not come to light. I find it incredible that if the diary is a forgery, that modern science cannot prove this.
I am still undecided on the diary, and my main point of this post is this:
Do any of you believe that the proof I referred to above will ever be found? Is there some conclusive piece of evidence out there which will finally settle this matter? |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 11:02 am | | Hi Michael,
If no one can pin the diary conclusively onto the small group of identified forger suspects (and even Melvin Harris is not claiming to have done this), where do we go from here? Who else is there to suspect? And if there is no one else, where the hell did the document come from?
Modern science, as far as I can see, may only be of any use if it could disprove a theory that the diary is a decades old creation. Thus far, there has been no smoking gun in this regard, despite all the back and forth arguments about the make-up of the ink etc. I don't think science follows the historian's rule of the onus being on the theorist to prove the theory - it generally must either knock down a theory or it fails to knock it down.
Hi RJ,
Back to Albert Fish. I agree entirely - we can't even begin to get inside depraved minds like his. But so what if 'dozens if not hundreds of murderers' have had perfect recall after the event? If just one known example bucks the trend then 'a traumatic loss of memory' is a possibility, which is all I am really pointing out.
Forget the diary for a moment. One difference between Albert Fish and JtR is the fact that Fish stayed at the crime scene - he didn't need to rely on memory for a single detail, yet he still had the immediate impression that he had been cutting up a boy's body, not a girl's. JtR fled the scene of MJK's destruction. He couldn't go back to check everything he did in that room, and where everything was when he left. If he had less than perfect recall for any reason (trying to inflict the most damage in the shortest possible time to avoid being caught red-handed springs to mind as just one possibility, and one that wouldn’t have applied to Fish), how could he relive the thrill better than by devouring the reports of the mess he had caused?
Now back to the diary. If you knew who had written the words about the breasts, you would almost certainly know when and why. You don't – so you are guessing.
'Maybrick' has read the reports about his latest, and says he left the breasts on the table (yes, I agree, an error of fact). A bit later he says he thought of putting them 'by the whore's feet'. I agree this reference to feet is an oddity, whether the author knows about the previous error, is unsure of the facts for some reason, or believes he is right about the table. It seems to be an 'unpleasant' oddity only because the author’s overall choice of words takes a bit of explaining, and none of the possibilities so far appear to make sense.
If a modern hoaxer has read Bond’s report he knows he has more than one option for where 'Maybrick' puts the breasts - hard to fathom why the dullest-witted forger would opt for mentioning them at all if he is unsure whose info will prove correct. And if he doesn’t know about Bond’s report, the unknowing, coincidental reference to feet does indeed appear to be 'another remarkable example of the forger's ability to keep his [her?] neck out of the noose'.
Isn't it strange how the amazing coincidences in the diary story tend to fight one another for supremacy? The 'O costly' coincidence keeps the unidentified forger's neck in the noose, while your ‘unpleasant’ reference to feet lets him gasp for breath another day.
Almost eleven years on death row and still counting...
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
