|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Time for Re-Eval
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: Diary of Jack the Ripper:
Time for Re-Eval
Author: Jeff Hamm
Wednesday, 21 August 2002 - 11:27 pm |        | John,
I can see your point about "directing abuse" at Flo via the watch. I was thinking the victim list, the "I am Jack", would be "written" with "blame: as in All because of you Flo!" as the "motivation". If, and these are all big IFs indicating huge speculations here, if Maybricks the Ripper and IF he carved on the watch, then starting with those to big assumptions can we reasonably see the personality in the Diary making these markings? I think that "content" could come from such a personality. I also think that "content" could just as easily come from a forgery that knew nothing about the diary! Caz has suggested there may be 6 pairs of initials, but we don't know if that's true as it could also be read as only 5. If it is 6, at least the diary also lists more than the canoncial 5 victims, albeit the diary lists more than 6 as well. Fortunately, this is the kind of question that we can actually answer by examining the watch itself!
But again, proving the watch to be a dud still leaves the diary open for debate. Since the diary doesn't mention the watch, this is consistent with "not connected items" as in "one real; one forged" or "both forged independently", but also with "both real" because one can always argue that "he just didn't think to mention the watch".
I find that last arguement stretching things though. If the diary writer was also "saving memories" on some watch, the watch must be somehow connected in importance to the crimes (as you sggest from a victim) or the motivation/rage (hence my thinking of a gift for his wife) and this is the very kind of information the diary writer seems determined to write down.
The "book used as a diary" doesn't require such a connectioin, because writing in books is normal (although not usually photo albulms; perhaps this was a photo albulm of pictures of James and Flo in happier times? The connection isn't necessary, but if there were one that wouldn't be a surprise). However, watches, not being something we normally write on, would require a "symbolic" connection or it wouldn't be thought of as a "writing surface". He's not going to scratch such things on his breakfast spoon, for example.
And yes, that "symbolic" connection could also be that the watch was stolen from his first "victim". The "lost one" in Manchester. I don't have my copy of the Diary, so I can't check myself. Is this victim #1's social status described? I would think if it was someone who would own a watch, they would not be the "4d ladies of Whitechapple poor", but reasonably wealthy (it's not a cheap watch after all). Such a murder, I suggest, would have been in the papers unless, of course, it was thought the person died of natural causes. And, if Caz's suggestion of a 6th pair of initials is correct, this person's initials start with J with last name starting with either V, N, U, or W.
So, if we start by assuming both the diary and the watch are real, we can validily make the prediction that in Manchester, prior to the date of Mary Anne Nichols murder but after "first murder" (see note below), a woman of enough wealth to afford the watch, and who had the initials JV, JN, JU, or JW was murdered by strangulation, or failing that, who died of "asphyxiation by misadventure" (thought to be an accendental death, but could have been strangulation).
Note: We can't pin down the date of the supposed 1st murder itself I believe, but presumably there is some event in the diary prior to the first murder that can be time stamped and give us a "not before this date", while Nichols' murder gives us the "not after this date". These events are supposed to be after JM realised Florence was having an affair (although this realisation was denied by his brother I understand). Presumably Feldman has indicated when he thinks this "realisation" occurred based on some documented event in JM's life?
If we can't find such an event, then we have a prediction that is not supported by the research data. So if it fails (we can't find our J? death in Manchester), it's reasonable to assume that both are not genuine since our prediction is derived when we assume that both are. It's not conclusive, because there are other assumptions in our prediction (the murder was in Manchester, for example). However, if we found there was no death in all of the UK that could fit this discription ... well, James must have misheard her name, we've misread the scratches, the watch is a forgery but the diary is not, both are forgeries, etc.
And if we do find one that fits (in Manchester that is), then it's not proof both are genuine. Could still be a clever forgery and this is the death we're "supposed" to find. But what if James Maybrick can be shown not to be in Manchester on that date?
Ok, I'll admit it, I'm having a lot of fun thinking of predictions and what information it suggests we look for. I don't have access to the appropriate documents or newspapers here in New Zealand though. Anyone in Manchester got 5 minutes to search the papers and let us know? 
- Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 10:01 am | | Hi, John, Jeff, and Caz:
If James Maybrick wrote those initials and "I am Jack" in Florie's watch... and of course I don't really think he did any such thing!... but just assuming he did, he could have slipped in back in her jewelry drawer and she could have been carrying it around with her husband's "confession" carved therein!
However, I find the whole scenario of taking revenge on Florie by killing prostitutes two hundred miles away unrealistic. If he was going to carve in the watch why not something more along the lines of "You're a bitch, Florie" or "Wish it were you, Flo!" Or better yet, if the idea was revenge on Florie for her philandering why not a smart smack across the cheek? Sorry, Caz and the ladies who might read this.
To Rich Buchko:
You stated:
Okay, Keith Skinner obviously knows something we don't, and understandably he is holding back for the publication of his book. BUTTTTTT - do you think he is going to reveal the final truth about a forgery, or is he going to surprise many people with a strong argument that the diary is genuine? ORRRRR - something in between?
Rich, my reading of the situation, having met Keith Skinner and spent some time with him, is that Keith definitely believes the Diary to be a forgery. The only questions are who and why? As you know, Keith appears to believe the Diary an old forgery, and he gives the hypothetical dates for its composition as 1909-1933. I am still curious why he chooses those particular dates and wonder if he has some information that leads him to those dates rather than a more general range of time such as 1910-1940.
Hopefully the upcoming book by Keith and Seth Linder will answer these questions and finally end the years of speculation and controversy not to mention the ill-feeling that the Diary has engendered in the field generally and on these boards. I somehow doubt that will happen but some breaks seem to be occurring in the case of the damnable Diary. Possibly the puzzle will soon finally be solved and the work of trying to identify the killer can continue without this distraction.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeffrey L Adamson
Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 10:18 am | | I don't know if this had been brought up before, but what about having some admitted/experienced forgers take a look at the watch and diary? Maybe the old saying "it takes a thief to catch a thief" applies. Ask them how they would make forgeries like that.
Also, I'm trying to find those old lab reports I once had. I'm sure you all know the problems of being a computer owner whose had to reformat their system several times over the years. If I can find my old backup tapes I will look again. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 10:48 am | | Hi John,
Please – say no more about it. I really appreciate the gesture, and of course I accept your apology, unreservedly.
BTW, I hope the aspirin worked! 
Hi Chris,
Well, obviously the idea behind a diary forger's Maybrick would have been to re-invent him as a disturbed substance-abusing Jekyll and Hyde figure, who had a love-hate relationship with himself and Flo, leading him to project his entire self-loathing, and disappointment in his wife's waywardness, into the far distance and onto anonymous tarts in 'that London', while under the 'fluence of, and charged up by, his 'medicine'. Now whether serial killers ever really see their crimes in this way, using perfect strangers to 'kill' the real object of so much passionate feeling, over and over again, I don't know. But it's a neat idea, even though rational minds like yours and mine would inevitably see it as too melodramatic and far-fetched for anyone to act that way in real life.
Hi Jeff,
Now it’s my turn to apologise for possibly causing a lot of needless speculation. It appears that the photo of the watch does not support my idea that Albert Johnson’s colleague, who drew the sketch that appears on p36 of Feldy’s paperback, was describing 6 sets of victims’ initials rather than 5.
All we can say at this stage is that, if the scratches were made independently, and with no prior knowledge of how many victims ‘Maybrick’ had claimed – or identified by name or circumstances - in the diary, there was a clear risk involved for the watch hoaxer, even by sticking with the canonical five. For all he knew, when the diary was published, he could have found a thoroughly modern ‘Maybrick’ raving ‘they think I killed that whore in Berner Street ha ha the fools know nothing’ or ‘39 times I struck that first bitch Tabram’. Not including one or more in the watch would not be fatal – but what about including one categorically denied by the diary author? Wouldn’t that have been, ahem, a Stride too far?
Regarding Florie's infidelity, no one but she could tell us how many flirtations/affairs she had in total, and their exact duration. And no one but Jim could say if he ever knew or suspected anything, or what his reaction would have been. Even if Michael truly believed his brother was in blissful ignorance, how could he have known that for sure? It’s something that simply can’t be proved. If James had his own suspicions, or even proof, there are several immediately obvious reasons why he might not have wanted to confide in anyone – denial, shame, pride, self-respect, before we even consider secret plans for revenge! Would an insecure husband, having won for himself a very young wife, and worrying that her pretty head might easily turn towards the first young and handsome man to make a play for her, necessarily confide such fears to his brother?
I should have thought the diary researchers would have left no stone unturned in their search for a record of possible murder victims in or around Manchester. I suppose there is the slight possibility that a couple of unfortunates could have been attacked and/or killed with no details ever reaching the papers or official records of any kind? At least, the diary forger must have been banking on such a possibility if he was expecting today’s researchers to check and, finding nothing, still take his words at all seriously. But one could ask why bother to invent two extra victims, knowing that people would inevitably say there would have been some record, therefore these victims didn’t exist beyond the diarist’s imagination?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 08:08 pm | | Caz,
There was nothing needless about the speculation at all! It sparked discussions and possibilities that could be tested, and were. So it turned out to be 5 sets and not 6. Very rarely in this case do we have something that can be so easily tested. The important thing is that we went back to the original data.
I suppose if the watch is forged, then forger was "taking a risk" by including Stride, but then the forgery itself is a risk. Leaving out Stride would also be a risk because what if the Diary claimed her? The forger may just have looked up the names of JtR's victims and not read anything more. The rest of their time was spent polishing away so they may not have even realised they were taking a risk by including her!
As for Flo's infidelities, you're correct, there's no necessary reason for James to confide his knowledge (presuming he had any) to his brother. As for time/duration etc, we don't know that for sure either, but I was basing those statements on the assumption the Diary is "true". If we could verify, for sure, that Flo wasn't haveing an affair, or even that James did not know of it, prior to the murder of Nichols, the diary falls down.
Hard to say about these "missing victims". Perhaps, if forged, the forger just figured if they make these additional ones "vague" enough then any murder would do. If nothing is found, maybe it wasn't Manchester after all! Or maybe the records are lost, etc. Not finding one could be argued away and finding a "random match" isn't too much to expect because the references are not very specific. All it needs is an unsolved murder by strangulation. A risk? Sure, but given how little we have to work with, there's lots of room to "argue". By saying very little about them, there is very little to test.
- Jeff |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 23 August 2002 - 07:44 am | | Hi Jeff,
'If we could verify, for sure, that Flo wasn't haveing an affair, or even that James did not know of it, prior to the murder of Nichols, the diary falls down.'
Quite. But, as I suspect you agree, no one on the planet can verify negatives of that sort. A whole lot of wives, falsely accused by jealous and possessive husbands, would no doubt be very comforted if they could!
And presumably, if Jim really was planning some sort of criminal revenge for Florie's suspected dalliances, his best bet would have been to pretend ignorance about them, for as long as he could restrain himself.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 23 August 2002 - 11:44 am | | A couple of notes from the opposition.
1. "no one but Jim could say if he ever knew or suspected anything, or what his reaction would have been. Even if Michael truly believed his brother was in blissful ignorance, how could he have known that for sure?"
Jim was close to Michael. They travelled together and even shared the same bed when doing so. Michael insisted that his brother was ignorant about his wife's infidelity. So one has a choice. Either believe Michael Maybrick's statement while under oath at the trial, or believe a shady document that is not in the known handwriting of the alleged writer.
As for Maybrick's "reaction" we don't need to speculate. The historical record tells us. When Florie Maybrick merely walked off with Brierley at the Grand National, Maybrick threw a public fit, raged in front of the servants, blackened his wife's eye. The next day one of the family doctors became involved in the dispute and reconciliation. This, it seems to me, runs directly counter with the odd scenerio in the diary, wherein Maybrick keeps his jealousy secret [even being "thrilled" by thoughts of his wife's cheating] only to take it out on Whitechapel prostitutes.
2. "I suppose there is the slight possibility that a couple of unfortunates could have been attacked and/or killed with no details ever reaching the papers or official records of any kind?"
I would agree that this possibility is slight. I'd even say it approaches the non-existant. Inquest reports were a common feature in 19th Century newspapers. The diary describes a stangulation in mid-1888, and a savage attack in early 1889. Both in Manchester. I find it very difficult to believe that the Guardian would fail to mentioned these crimes. The latter took place in what was still the peak of the Ripper scare. I also must assume that Feldman's team checked the death records, mortuary reports, etc. for this time-frame. Thus, I reckon they weren't found because they didn't happen. Reminds me somehow of Fairy Fay.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Caroline Morris
Saturday, 24 August 2002 - 01:25 pm | | Hi RJ,
We've been over and over this 'what Michael knew' thing. It's not a choice between whether we 'believe Michael Maybrick's statement while under oath at the trial' or 'a shady document that is not in the known handwriting of the alleged writer'. I can't believe you still think I am arguing for the latter! All I'm saying is that you can't use Michael's testimony to conclude that James never suspected his wife of getting up to anything before the Ripper murders began, and therefore that the forger made a fatal error in making that the motive.
The point is that Michael could have insisted until he was blue in the face that James was ignorant about Florie's infidelity, but he was simply not in a position to know any such thing, only believe it to be true to the best of his knowledge. Just because James never said a word in Michael's company about the subject does not entitle you to conclude anything either way. It's meaningless.
Can you not imagine a scenario whereby a man might suspect his wife, but feel too humiliated to want to confide in a much-admired brother that she wasn't the loving and loyal partner everyone thought she was? I can - very easily. The result would be exactly the same as if the wretched man really was in a state of total ignorance, wouldn't it?
As for the Grand National ding-dong, that's an entirely different affair (if you will excuse the pun). James may or may not have harboured private fears or suspicions stretching way back, that his wife had not been faithful. But, as you put it so eloquently, she merely had to walk off with Brierley to cause him to throw a public fit, rage in front of the servants and blacken his wife's eye.
What does this suggest to you? A man who had every faith in his wife up until that point? Or a deeply proud man who saw her public behaviour with Brierley as the final humiliating straw? No point in keeping up a pretence any more that all was well if, as far as he was concerned, her behaviour at the race was tantamount to announcing to the world that she was doing the dirty on him. If no one else saw her behaviour that day as particularly provocative or suggestive, why did James, unless he already had private suspicions, or was suddenly overcome by a fit of irrational jealousy?
And you are not 'the opposition'! I have agreed time and time again that the diary is not in Maybrick's known hand. I just don't know why you need to use a poor argument, or in fact a non-argument, to support a damn good one, that's all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 09:08 am | | MY TERMS TO SMITH Melvin Harris
As a former publisher Robert Smith shows scant regard for the
meaning of words and the significance of their context. I have
ALREADY said that pressure of work means that I cannot keep up
with the erroneous matter placed on this board. But he still
complains about my delays. And he still fails to correct his
misrepresentations.
I exposed his false account of the 'Sir James' event, but he
chooses to skate over that, I pinpointed his faulty verdict on
the wording of the Maybrick Will and he now tells us that it was
information that he "didn't know". Didn't know? in 1993 he was
citing McDougall's bogus transcript of the Will as part of his
sales pitch and excuse-making. I reminded him that the holographic
will was backed up by a Certified Copy made at the time. Both
texts were identical and display the figures that Smith now says
he "didn't know". On top of that, the very bogus version he was
citing also carries THE SAME FIGURES. To crown it all I sent both
Smith and Harrison comparison copies of the authentic will and
the bogus transcript PLUS a copy of the verbatim newspaper report
of the Will. All four of these documents carry the figures Smith
"didn't know". Any wonder that I have doubts about his thinking?
As for my alleged premature verdict on the Diary. My initial view
was that the chances of it being authentic were remote in the
extreme. I added that it would probably be written in a diary or
journal with the front pages cut out, and penned with an
undateable iron-gall ink. When I said that, I had more experience
of Ripper frauds than anyone else. Later, when the Maybrick name
leaked out, not one line of the Diary writing was shown by Smith.
I then deduced that the handwritinq did not match Maybrick's. And
I was right on all points.
Smith refuses to face the fact that the Leeds testers also failed
to find SODIUM in the ink, whereas Eastaugh found it in every
sample he tested. Yet this, and its implications, has been
explained to him twice already. And he (like others on this
board) STILL fails to grasp the crucial role of the extraction
factor. The individual, components of a dried ink do not dissolve
out at an even pace. It is these variable extraction rates that
determine tha amount of any substance that passes into the
laboratory solvent in a qiven time, These amounts can, therefore,
differ from the manufacturer's formula.
As for the watch tests, I have covered these in earlier posts.
The caveats in both Turgoose's and Wild's reports confirm that
from the standpoint of exact science, the scratches cannot be
dated and could well be modern fakes. In a case like this the
caveats are the most important features; they overrule
conclusions that are mere surmise. And Smith ignores the point I
made that Dr Wild was given a false ten year basedate to start
from. However, let all be revealed on screen, since my terms for
letting Robert Smith have the Sphere book on loan, now follow:
I want EVERY line and graph of EVERY single report on the Diary and the watch placed here, on the Casebook. Up to now the only detailed reports have been placed by me, but they are incomplete.
This is an affront to every truth-seeker. And it should now be
ended. When this is done, Robert Smith is welcome to collect the
volume from the City of London office to which I shall be moving
within a month.
I have asked for this before but waa met by Robert Smith's
evasive reply that " the copyriqht in them is owned by the
authors of the reports" (June 29 2001), THIS IS NOT TRUE. The
reports in question are not internal investigations initiated by
the testers. They are commissioned by outsiders; by fee payers.
And they are not privileged documents. So the text of ANY such
report can be quoted freely. Every line should have been made
public years ago. Any failure to reveal is an act of concealment.
And there have been far too many such concealments where these
fake artefacts are concerned. That is a fact and not abuse.
Finally let Smith and others, understand that, although I draw on
my own wide experiences and expertise, I am not a Lone Ranger.
Over many years I have built up a network of contacts throughout
Europe, the UK and the USA, They consult me; I consult them. Thus
many of the positions I take up are based on the considered
verdicts of many experts. That is why I have stated that no
laboratory anywhere can date such shallow scratches in 18 carat
qold. And we have yet to find anyone who can date an iron-gall
ink! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 30 August 2002 - 09:31 am | | Dear Keith--Hello. In regards to your post of Wednesday, 21 August, 2002.
If you manage to find out from Robert Smith the details of the photograph of Anne Graham & Mike Barrett published in Shirley Harrison's book, could you possibly post the information? It seems to me that the photographs of Battlecrease [also credited to Smith Gryphon] do have some similarity to the background we see in the photograph of Mike & Anne. I suppose it will seem like a trivial matter, but I'd be interested in knowing when the photograph was taken, and if the location can be confirmed. Many thanks, RJ Palmer |
Author: Robert Smith
Friday, 30 August 2002 - 03:44 pm | | RESPONSE TO THE HARRIS TERMS
Melvin Harris’s irresponsible offer is this: he will only agree to release his copy of the Sphere book for an independent examination, if I agree to infringe various authors’ copyrights by publishing their reports on the Casebook.
I explained to him in my post of 29th June 2001, that I did not commission any of the diary and watch tests, and that copyrights in the reports are owned by their authors. Mr Harris categorically denies that the authors own the copyrights, declaring in block capitals, “THIS IS NOT THE TRUTH”.
But Mr Harris, as an experienced published author, will know, that an author’s works, whether they are books, diaries, letters or reports, are fully protected by the 1988 Copyright, Design and Patents Act. They cannot be quoted extensively without permission of the author.
Those who commissioned the reports have exclusive rights of usage, and must also be approached for permissions. I gave their names in my post of 5th June 2002.
I said in that same post that, “I would be delighted to see every word of every report freely available.” And on 29th June 2001, I invited Mr Harris “to seek the appropriate permissions required from those, who commissioned the reports, and from those, who wrote them, and then to post them himself.” So why hasn’t the self-proclaimed “truth seeker” done just that at any time over the last few years?
His offer is unacceptable. In order to meet his irrelevant and unreasonable condition for releasing the Sphere book, I would be placing myself and the Casebook at legal risk. He can either take the risk himself (assuming the Casebook Management is in agreement) or, as he is the one so keen to see the reports on the internet, he can get the necessary permissions.
So, let’s cut the prevarication. Will you or won’t you, Mr Harris, allow the Sphere volume to be examined by an independent book production expert?
Robert Smith |
Author: Robert Smith
Friday, 30 August 2002 - 03:46 pm | | Dear RJ,
In response to your query, I photographed the Barrett family by the front door of Battlecrease House in the summer of 1993, for the purpose of inclusion in The Diary of Jack the Ripper.
Robert Smith |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 30 August 2002 - 08:16 pm | | | Robert--Thank you. RJ Palmer |
Author: Caroline Morris
Sunday, 01 September 2002 - 05:34 am | | Hi RJ, Chris, Robert, All,
Keith has given me a response to post regarding the photo, which will follow this one. As you will see, it crossed with Robert's.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Keith Skinner
Sunday, 01 September 2002 - 05:35 am | | Dear RJ
Thank you for your message. I haven't yet asked Robert for details about the photograph, as I was waiting for Chris George's assessment. Irrespective of whatever your reasons are for being interested in when the photograph was taken, I'm encouraged that you are curious. I would support your consistent questioning of events and I firmly believe that no avenue of investigation should be closed off just because it may seem like a "trivial matter". The point I was clumsily trying to debate with Chris is that, if he is wrong about the photograph, - then why is he wrong about the photograph? Possibly because he has made an assumption and moved on from there without questioning whether his deduction is factually secure. And if that same intellectual process is then transferred to other areas of his thinking concerning the investigation into the Diary and the Watch, then might more of his conclusions be unsafe?
But let's wait to hear what Chris thinks about the photograph.
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 01 September 2002 - 08:08 pm | | Hi, Keith:
Yes, it appears that on the basis of Robert Smith's kind answer that I was mistaken, and the photograph was indeed taken in summer 1993 by Robert, of the Barrett family on the front doorstep of Battlecrease mansion, where James and Florence Maybrick lived ca. 1884-1889. As Robert notes, the photograph was taken for the purposes of including it in Shirley Harrison's impending book, The Diary of Jack the Ripper, to be published by Robert's then publishing company, Smyth Gryphon.
I will admit that my recollection was that from remembering the photograph in Shirley's book that the picture showed a rather upfront, simple working class family on their own doorstep. Now on looking at the photograph I see it is actually a much grander house entrance. The trim on the building and the bright sunlight evident in the photo are absolutely consistent with the other photographs of Battlecrease shown in Shirley's book that are also attributed to "Smith Gryphon." Presumably all of these photographs were taken by Robert on the same sunny day. Perhaps Robert will confirm that is the case.
I don't see anything particularly significant in the fact that the locale of the photograph of the Barrett family, Michael, Anne, and daughter Caroline is not named in Shirley's book, or at not least noted as being the location in a caption to the photograph. There may be mention of the Barretts being photographed at Battlecrease in the summer of 1993 in Shirley's text, I am not sure... though my guess is not. Again, though, I think this is just an oversight and nothing to get worked up about.
I still think, Keith, that all we now know about the Mike and Anne, they come across in that photograph as regular Joe Q. Public Liverpudlians without the complexity we can now credit to their personalities. Someone like Stewart Evans, with his police experience, or Melvin or Ivor might think I am exceedingly naive, but that at any rate was my impression on first seeing that photograph, an impression that has been greatly modified since Shirley's hardback saw the light of day in 1993!
Keith: here's a question, and perhaps you will not want to answer with your impending book coming up. Could there be any significance to the fact that the additional pages of the Diary which you have confirmed do exist, were produced by Michael Barrett on or around the ten-year anniversary of the trip he made to London to take the Diary to literary agent Doreen Montgomery in March 1992? Could the practical joke, which I sometimes think the Diary might be, even if a practical joke turned bad, be starting to unravel, and the truth to be revealed?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Dow
Monday, 02 September 2002 - 08:30 am | | Re: Alledged murder in Manchester - who's to say it was unsolved? Maybe someone else took the rap for it:
GELL,JOHN ALFRED,,1888-15-MAY,MURDER OF MRS MARY MILLER,MANCHESTER
Just be way of example
John |
Author: Keith Skinner
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 11:14 am | | Dear Chris
In reply to your question about the timing of Mike Barrett producing additional pages of the Diary to possibly coincide with the ten year anniversary of his visit to London, I don't believe this formed part of Mike's thinking. If I remember the conversation correctly, Mike told me that he had initially withheld the pages as a precaution against Anne, at some future date, attempting to steal his thunder by inventing a provenance for the Diary. I was too preoccupied with glancing at Mike's new pages to ask him why he had waited eight years before acting. Certainly Anne Graham was unaware of these additional pages and registered little interest, surprise or curiosity about them when I told her of their existence. Seth and I will obviously be referring to Mike's pages in our book, but the property belongs exclusively to Mike and I understand that he has been in touch with various publishers inviting them to assess his material and make him an offer.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 11:36 am | | Caz,
Sorry for the delay. I've been busy with work related things for the past few weeks.
You are correct. We can't prove that Flo wasn't having an affair. If, however, a theory required that she had an affair with a specific individual during a specific time frame, then all we would have to do is demonstrate that this scenerio wasn't possible. Much like showing how the Duke can't be the Ripper because he wasn't in London! We can't prove he never killed anyone, but we can prove he didn't kill the individuals necessary to make him the Ripper. It's this lack of "time" specificity in the Diary that really makes it hard to put it to the test based on content. Trying to assign min/max dates to some of the collection of the passages, however, might be a useful line of inquiry though.
- Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 12:41 pm | | Hi, Keith:
Thank you so much for your message to me of Thursday, 5 September 2002 at 11:14 am. As usual with a number of aspects of the Diary and particularly when Mike Barrett is involved, I find the information perplexing and contradictory. You say that in regard to the new additional pages of the Diary in Mike's possession that he is actually now contacting "various publishers inviting them to assess his material and make him an offer." What is perplexing is not this per se but your other statement that, "If I remember the conversation correctly, Mike told me that he had initially withheld the pages as a precaution against Anne, at some future date, attempting to steal his thunder by inventing a provenance for the Diary."
What is entirely mystifying to me here is that Anne told her story of a so-called "new provenance" for the Diary, i.e., the Diary had been in her family for years, way back in the summer of 1994. A whole eight years ago. Why has Mike been sitting on these pages all this time, when the new Diary story was "out there" having been published in Paul Feldman's Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter, which appeared in Spring 1997?
You further say that you told Anne Graham of these additional pages and she expressed no surprise. "Certainly Anne Graham was unaware of these additional pages and registered little interest, surprise or curiosity about them when I told her of their existence."
Here again this is astounding because she is the woman who has been contending for the last seven years that the Diary was in her family, yet here is Mike, quite independently producing additional pages which I have to assume (though you have not said) are consistent in some way with the pages in the known Diary. Doesn't the sudden appearance of these extra pages separate to the known Diary, of which you say Anne was apparently unaware, cast a shadow over her story and make it seem less likely to be true? In fact, Mike's confessions of having done the deed, it would seem to me, should be viewed in new light now that he has brought to light these additional pages.
As for whether Mike waited to release these pages around the ten-year anniversary of him taking the the Diary to Doreen Montgomery in March 1992, I would reiterate my theory that the Diary might be a practical joke gone bad, and that there could be other parties involved whose participation in the production of the Diary might be revealed hopefully in the not too distant future. Possibly this person or these people wish at last for the truth to come out?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 01:38 pm | | Hi Chris,
Summer of 1994, I think you meant. Mike would have read Anne's 'in the family' story in Shirley's paperback, which came out in the Autumn of that year.
Hi Jeff,
Good to see you back.
The problem is, if we were dealing with a real diary by a real psychopath, the fact that he would be acting abnormally out of obsessive jealousy makes it entirely possible that someone like that could invent lovers for his wife, even if they didn't exist, from the flimsiest of 'evidence', or even from no evidence at all outside a rather fevered and damaged imagination. Othello may be fiction, but there are many documented cases where men truly believe their partners are being unfaithful when they are not. For some men, the very idea allows them to indulge a fantasy, or wallow in self-pity.
But, yes, I can see that if the diarist specifically records anything Florie got up to that can be disproved by historical fact, it is only likely to add to the already strong case that this diary was not Maybrick's own work.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 02:02 pm | | Hi, Caz:
Thanks for your correction. I have now in fact corrected my post to say that Anne told her story that the Diary "had been in her family for years, way back in the summer of 1994. A whole eight years ago." This makes it even more bizarre that Mike has been sitting on these additional pages all this time.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Keith Skinner
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 04:41 am | | Dear Chris
I agree. The entire Diary and Watch story rocks with contradictory statements, bewildering behaviour, irrational actions, misleading information, perplexity, intrigue, mystery and confusion.
And that's just the researchers input into the investigation...
To thicken the mix, I can tell you that Anne Graham expressed absolutely no desire to examine Mike's new pages and is not in the least fazed by their sudden emergence. Her contention that the Diary was in her family remains consistent.
Well, perhaps you're right Chris and the Diary is a practical joke that has spiralled disastrously out of control with people jumping on the bandwagon, hoping to make a few quid out of some scratches they manufactured in the back of a watch - and then turning down a considerable amount of money when a gullible American collector offers to buy the watch. I know that Martin (Fido), a few years ago, advanced the theory that the Diary had been created by Anne, her father and Tony Devereux, not so much as a practical joke to play on Mike, but as a means to an end for keeping Mike out of the pub, by giving him something with which to occupy his mind. Martin later abandoned this theory but perhaps there is merit in it if you are thinking along similar lines? At what point though do you think the joke might have "gone bad"? And how many "other parties" do you feel may be involved here?
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 06:50 am | | I'd forgotten that, Keith. I'd better keep my mouth shut in future, surrounded as I am with scholars quick to note and record every possibly foolish remark I make!
As always,
Martin |
Author: Ally
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 07:56 am | | Keith,
Anne's reaction doesn't really support her claim that the diary was in her family. I mean..why isn't she interested in examining the new pages? Then again...why should she be interested in examining the new pages? If the Diary is real (or in the family for years) shouldn't she be a little ticked at Mike's schemes that might cast even more doubt on her credibility? If the Diary is forged and she knows it, shouldn't she be ticked at Mike once again casting doubt on the Diary's origination? If the Diary is real, and the forty new pages are real (hee hee hee chortle) shouldn't she be interested in this new development?
If she really isn't interested whatsoever in the Diary, then it isn't really indicative of anything except she isn't interested in the Diary anymore...it doesn't really say much about her involvement or lack thereof in its creation. I pulled many a prank in my day that I wouldn't really want to continue to discuss or fake interest in the 10 year later aftermath. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 10:08 am | | Hi, Keith:
You stated to me:
"Well, perhaps you're right Chris and the Diary is a practical joke that has spiralled disastrously out of control with people jumping on the bandwagon. . . . At what point though do you think the joke might have 'gone bad'? And how many 'other parties' do you feel may be involved here?"
I still think there is the possibility that someone well read in the Ripper and Maybrick cases may have put the Diary together as a joke around the time of the Ripper Centenary in 1988 or soon thereafter.
One of the things I have been thinking about is that around that time nothing much new had come out about the case--no major dramatic findings with new suspects. It just so happened, however, that Stewart Evans would shortly discover the Littlechild letter when he made the purchase of a number of Ripper-related letters from used book dealer, Eric Barton, who was going out of business. Thus it so happened that the big clamor over the emergence of the Maybrick Diary in 1993 took place at the same time that Stewart's discovery was made known, which resulted in the publication of his book on Tumblety written with Paul Gainey in 1995. Maybrick took some of the thunder from Stewart's discovery and the spotlight on a genuine suspect. I am not inferring that the Maybrick diary was written to take away from Tumblety, just that de facto this is what happened in the Ripper world at the time.
Now the emergence since 1993 of other facts might make more likely the notion that someone knowledgeable in the Ripper and Maybrick cases was involved. These facts are that there is a quote in the Maybrick Diary that comes from 17th Century English Catholic poet Richard Crashaw, that Crashaw's father had Whitechapel connections, that the Maybrick family had connections to the East End, and even more recently the find by R. J. Palmer of an 1888 Ripper Diary reported in the American press.
I am working on the assumption that someone who knew the Ripper world might have thought it would be a neat trick as a practical joke to "marry" the Ripper and Maybrick cases and see how far the joke would go in terms of taking in some of the authorities on the case.
As for when the practical joke went wrong, possibly the death of Tony Devereaux is the key. I personally do not believe Anne Graham's story that the Diary had been in her family for decades. I tend to believe the original scenario that Tony received the Diary from person or persons unknown and gave it to Mike Barrett. However Mike's sudden possession of further pages to the Diary, now in his hands and previously not mentioned in either the Anne Graham or the Devereaux-Barrett "I got the Diary from a mate down at the pub" scenario, might cast doubt on this interpretation.
You will note that in the quote from your message above I purposely left out the notion that the "Maybrick watch" played a part in inspiring the Diary. I think that is not impossible, that one inspired the other... that the watch pre-existed the Diary, although my hunch is that the Diary inspired the watch not the other way round.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 11:22 am | | Hi Keith:
I know that I've asked this of Shirley before but:
have you met this American collector?
how firm are you that he has made such an offer?
have you made any enquiry into him or his background.
In short, does he really exist?
Chris:
And as we have previously discussed, it would be intriguing to say the least if someone "in the Ripper world" had used a quote from Crashaw in another book. |
Author: Keith Skinner
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 11:58 am | | Dear Martin
I am obliged to you for your message wherein you chide your esteemed self for recklessly sharing an observation with me. Permit me to opine that perhaps your remark was not as foolish as, unhappily, you have deemed it to be, for, in part, it has the support of the redoubtable Mr Christopher George, who would appear to be lending the idea some consideration and weight.
I was never quite clear why you abandoned your theory in favour of your present belief, honourably and sincerely held, that Anne Graham devized the Diary whilst Mike Barrett was simply the penman? It interests me because your explanation keeps it clean and simple, involving no other players, whereas Chris, RJ, Melvin and others - sharing the same conviction as you that the Diary is a modern hoax created after 1987 - widen the number of participants.
Confused, I remain...
Keith |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 12:07 pm | | Hi Peter,
Be not a niggard of your speech - has someone "in the Ripper world" used a quote from Crashaw in another book?
And are you seriously accusing Shirley, who is not apparently here to defend herself, of inventing the American who offered a large sum to take the watch and its dodgy scratches off the hands of those you think faked it?
Hi Chris, Ally,
It’s good to see you both trying to make sense out of Anne’s reaction - or non-reaction - to Mike's latest claim. I have to say that, if the diary – containing no more or no fewer than the 63 pages published in 1993 - came originally from Anne, and was given to Mike in the way she said it was, without him knowing any more about its origins, her reaction is more or less what I would have expected. And given what we know about Mike, and the fact that Anne knows him better than anyone, I would suggest that the reason she doesn’t appear ‘in the least fazed’ by the latest development in this human drama may be because she understands the motivations that lie behind it. Who knows, she may even have been expecting something of this kind to happen sooner or later.
But let’s face it, if Anne had the diary first, before Mike, she has no need to worry about the new pages (or examine them, if she wants nothing more to do with Mike or the diary or his bizarre claims about it), because she knows they can’t hurt her, no matter what form they might take. And in that case she certainly wouldn’t be assuming, like you have Chris, that Mike must have been sitting on them for upwards of ten years! (Think about it for a second – what will Anne be thinking about the pages if her own story is true?) And if her story is rubbish, and Mike will shortly be proving it by producing pages that correspond with the original, which she would have to have known about if it had come from her family, her reaction is immaterial because her game is already up.
Chris, you recently expressed the opinion that Mike had nothing to do with the diary's physical creation, and may not have known who did, and that it was Anne who was involved somehow. If Mike’s claim, to possess missing pages from the diary, has shaken this opinion and caused you to reassess his role, and Anne’s, I look upon it as a positive development. It may give us, after all, yet another insight into the behaviour, character and motivation of one of the main players.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 12:33 pm | | What the hell are you lot on about.....
......blah...blah...blah.....
James Maybrick is Jack the Ripper...... blah..blah....blah !
No one nor test has proven the the diary is a fake....blah.blah.blah
Robert says this...blah...blah and dearest Caz, you of all people should...blah..blah as for you Mr George...blah blah with a huge melon !!
The only one I have upmost respect for is Ally blah blah....
Blah blah...Manchester united.....Goodbye !
Peter Wood.
Divia, I tried my best, but I just cant do him justice !
Monty
Manchester united.....blah Keane.....blah...blah |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 02:02 pm | | Dearest Monty:
You forgot one:
MAYBRICK IS THE RIPPER I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CANNOT GRASP THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT!
Oh, and:
I HAVE GIVEN YOU ALL THE FACTS ALREADY AND THE OTHER TESTS HAVE NO EXPLANATION... REAL DIAMINE INK, CHLOROCETAMIDE... NO CHLOROCETAMIDE... HANDWRITING MATCHES... HANDWRITING DOESN'T MATCH BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER... (and other circular aruguments inserted here)
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Keith Skinner
Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 10:15 am | | Dear Chris
Thank you for your post.
On a point of information: Stewart will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I had the privilege of being the first person that Stewart told about the Littlechild Letter. The date of Stewart's telephone call to me was February 16th 1993 - by which time the investigation into the Diary had been going on for about seven months. Stewart will know when Eric Barton initially made contact with him.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Keith Skinner
Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 10:16 am | | Dear Peter
Thank you for your questions - and I haven't forgotten about Sarah Robertson!
a) No - I have never met the American collector.
b) The offer was firm - I have a photocopy of the document.
c) I have a dossier on the gentleman in question.
d) He does exist.
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 01:01 am | | Greetings all:
As I sit here, unable to sleep (I've got a terrible earache tonight), I was wondering about something.
What does Anne Graham do for a living these days?
Just curious,
Divia |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 01:27 am | | Dear Divia,
I'm sorry to read you have earache, I hope you feel much better soon.
I don't know what Ms Graham does for a living, but I can confirm she did not appear on UK television's "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here !".
Jim |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 09:53 am | | Dear Jim:
*sniff* Thanks for the sympathies. I feel just awful, and I'm just waiting for Monday so I can go see the doctor.
Ah, but did she appear on "So Graham Norton"? Hee hee!
Warm regards,
Divia |
|
|
|
|
