Logical fallacies surrounding the rebuttal of the Diary

[Stephen Leece]

The arguments against the alleged diary of Jack the Ripper are many. However the arguments rely on fallacies of logic:

Argument to spite:
1. Bill Gates dumped me at High School therefore I won’t buy Microsoft products.
2. The Diary owner’s representative backed out of tests at the last moment therefore it’s a hoax.

Appeal to fear:
1. Pascal’s wager states believe in God to avoid hell.
2. The diary brings bad luck so avoid the diary.

Appeal to ridicule:
1. “Nobody believes in Socialism after college. Grow up!”
2. Nobody believes in the Diary now. Grow up!

Appeal to authority:
1. Person ‘A’ makes claim B. There is something positive about Person ‘A’ therefore claim B is true.
2. Grey Hunter claims the diary is definitely a hoax. Grey Hunter has made many positive contributions to the study of the Ripper, therefore the diary is definitely a hoax.

Wisdom of Repugnance:
1. It is my gut feeling that stem cell research is unethical.
2. It is my gut feeling that the Diary is a hoax like the Hitler diaries.

Appeal to tradition:
1. These laws were passed 100 years ago and we have always followed them. Therefore there is no need to change them.
2. The diary was declared a hoax in 1992 and we have always believed so. Therefore there is no need for further examination of the issue.

Guilt by Association:
1. Person ‘A’ makes claim C. B’s also make claim C. Therefore Person ‘A’ is a B.
2. Poster ‘A’ suggests that the Anti-Diary argument is fallacious. Pro-Diarists also claim the Anti-Diary argument is fallacious; therefore Person ‘A’ is a Pro-Diarist.

Honour by Association:
1. I would make a good sports commentator because my friend is a good sports commentator.
2. I would make a good diary commentator because my friend is a good diary commentator.

Poisoning the Well:
1. Unfavourable information (be it true or false) about Person ‘A’ is presented; therefore any claims made by Person ‘A’ are false.
2. The owner of the Diary has refused tests on it; therefore any claims the owner makes as to the authenticity of the Diary are false.

Argument to the Cudgel:
1. “I should convert to Islam; if I do not, I will be subject to dhimmi status.
2. I should not believe in the Diary; if I do not I will be ostracised and pay the price socially.

Proof by Assertion:
1. If you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.
2. The diary is a fake, it’s a modern fake, most likely penned by someone who was schooled in the 1930s.

[Caroline Morris]

Bravo Stephen - an absolutely brilliant summary of just about everything that's wrong with diary thinking.

Why do otherwise intelligent people line up to show everyone just how unwilling or unable they are to think for themselves? It's a sad indictment on the field in general.

Just a tiny tweak or two if I may:

2. [It is regularly implied, despite impeccable evidence to the contrary, that] The owner of the Diary has refused [viable] tests on it [which have been offered him directly]; therefore any claims the owner makes as to the authenticity of the Diary are false.

Also, I don't think the owner has made any claims about the diary being genuine for an awfully long time, although he continues to believe it is a genuinely old document.

Love,

Caz
X

[robingoodfellow]

Bravo Stephen - an absolutely brilliant summary of just about everything that's wrong with diary thinking.

Why do otherwise intelligent people line up to show everyone just how unwilling or unable they are to think for themselves? It's a sad indictment on the field in general.

Just a tiny tweak or two if I may:

2. [It is regularly implied, despite impeccable evidence to the contrary, that] The owner of the Diary has refused [viable] tests on it [which have been offered him directly]; therefore any claims the owner makes as to the authenticity of the Diary are false.

Also, I don't think the owner has made any claims about the diary being genuine for an awfully long time, although he continues to believe it is a genuinely old document.

Love,

Caz
X

In short, beware the corruptive power of assumptions!

[SirRobertAnderson]

I've got another one for the list.

Because the researchers doing work on the Diary don't care to post their ongoing work on the Internet, it doesn't exist.

There are several others that come to mind....but I'll be charitable. :flame:

[WRITEFX]

I agree on those points.

There will always be someone saying that black is white and won't budge even if there is evidence to the contrary.

If we consider how many authors (and their followers) have been convinced they have found the identity of JTR, then it's not surprising that there is such controversy with the diary.

[Dan Norder]

Sure, some of the argments made against the diary are logical fallacies. Some of the arguments made for or against anything will end up being fallacious. But it's also a fallacy to conclude that all of the arguments against the diary are logical fallacies just because some are.

[Stephen Leece]

Very true Dan- it's my fault I didn't word the intro well at all and it's too late to edit it now. I asked for reasons why the diary is an obvious modern hoax and they were answers I received. John Omlor privately gave me some textual and historical observations which by definition aren't going to be based on fallacies of logic. But I'm still appalled at the responses I did receive publicly which I satirised above.

[How Brown]

Dan:

What are your feelings towards the positions held by Melvin Harris as they apply to the Diary at this point in time ?

[Caroline Morris]

John Omlor privately gave me some textual and historical observations which by definition aren't going to be based on fallacies of logic.

Hmmmm, you wanna bet? :) I've not seen any yet that are not rendered inherently suspect by the logic used to compare the text with historical 'fact' and to find the former wanting.

But maybe he saves his best stuff for private communications?

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Hi Stephen.

Don’t apologise for your first post. It makes an excellent point, and one with which I totally agree, and I don’t think I’m the only one.

Hi everybody else.

A lot of water has gone under the bridge since Melvin Harris listed his many objections against the diary. Each and every one falls apart under proper scrutiny, except the major issue of the handwriting, which clearly is a big problem for anyone who wants to make a case for it being genuine.

Harris told us all those years ago that he was about to expose his “nest of forgers”. He never did because he couldn’t. I strongly suspect he couldn’t because they never existed. Harris himself moved on to investigating the possibility that the diary was the work of journalists in the 1930s, so even he didn’t seem to have much faith in his own original ideas did he?

If the diary was created in the 30s, then obviously the diarist didn’t get his information from Fido’s book, and Harris knew that.

There is absolutely no point in trying to draw absolute conclusions about the diary by comparing it with the historical JTR facts as we know them, as those facts are so incomplete, ambiguous and possibly downright wrong in some instances.

So many arguments I’ve seen over the years against the diary are based on disagreements with Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman’s interpretation of the diary, and not the diary itself. In much the same way, many other arguments against are based on Ripperology’s interpretation of the known JTR facts, and that just won’t do.

At long last, people are starting to look elsewhere for the answers, and not up Harris’ blind alleys, and it’s about time. It no longer matters a jot if Michael wrote James’ will out for him. We have better examples of James’ handwriting now. Things have moved on.

Sir Bob’s Fletcher-Rogers suspicions are surely worth a look at, as are several other possibilities.

Setting out to prove it a modern post 1987 hoax has failed at every attempt, so just maybe that’s because it isn’t.

I’m delighted to see that at last there are many who are prepared to look at the diary, (and dare I hope that watch too?), with the blinkers off. We might actually get somewhere yet.

Regards to all.

Paul

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

Harris himself moved on to investigating the possibility that the diary was the work of journalists in the 1930s, so even he didn’t seem to have much faith in his own original ideas did he?

I didnt know that. But I did know about his secret squirrel forgers nest stuff.

Over on an other thread about Maybricks handwriting.....one sample that was not scanned in was the one apparently in a diary mentioning some girl called Piggy.

Is this Maybricks text as well or was that sample just a fable?

p

[Paul Butler]

Hi ho Mr P.

"Piggy" was Sarah Robertson, and the sample you refer to was an inscription in a bible written by James Maybrick in 1865 and presented to "Piggy" on her birthday.

It's a formal copperplate style of writing, and closer to "Dear Boss" than the diary.

Regards.

Paul

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

But how close is it to his other samples or is it yet another example that doesnt like others?

p

[Paul Butler]

Hi Ho Mr P.

Just my opinion of course, but although it is quite plausibly James' writing, it doesn't look much like his later writing at all.

BUT......this is contrived copperplate in style and he doesn't write his name in full. The M of JM does look right.

Its in Feldman's book, but is rather small and wouldn't scan well.

Paul

[SirRobertAnderson]

Sir Bob’s Fletcher-Rogers suspicions are surely worth a look at, as are several other possibilities.


Christopher Jones has just joined the Forums. :welcome: I'm certain that he will have more information on Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.

[Magpie]

One logical fallacy that comes up a lot but didn't make Mike's list (and I forget the proper term for it--although it seems to be a variation of the fallacy of the excluded middle):

The Diary is either real or a forgery.
Anything that proves the diary to be a forgery proves that it's a modern forgery.

[Mr. Poster]

This might not be logical but it bugs me...

"The Diary presents nothing new about the murders" :doh:

How would we know it was something new?

How could we accept anything as something new?

The Diary is a forgery because it presents nothing new and presents nothing new because it cannot as a forgery.....or whatever.

p

[Paul]

Hi ho

Quote:
Harris himself moved on to investigating the possibility that the diary was the work of journalists in the 1930s, so even he didn’t seem to have much faith in his own original ideas did he?

I didnt know that. But I did know about his secret squirrel forgers nest stuff.


Hi,
I don't think Harris did investigate that possibility. It was a suggestion I made very early on - Leonard Matters had written a newspaper article suggesting on the basis of what is as far as is known an unseen South American newspaper article that Jack the Ripper was a Dr Stanley and which resulted in 1929 in the publication of a book. It occured to me that a penny-a-liner or freelance journalist might have likewise seen the opportunity for making a few bob from an article or series of articles suggesting that Maybrick was the Ripper and dummied up the diary as something substantive to land on the editor's desk. If so, may be the editor turned down the idea, or maybe it just got swept aside when war broke out in 1939 and Jack the Ripper took a very far back seat to Adolf Hitler. This idea kind of provided a reason for the diary to have been written, it explained the use of old handwriting and ink (if old ink was indeed used), and so on. It obviously has problems, as do any 'old forgery' or its genuine claims, but at the time I suggested it I was trying to give an alternative to what was very fast polarising into its genuine and its a modern forgery camps..

[Paul Butler]

Hi Paul.

Thanks for that bit of info. I was quoting Shirley Harrison when I made that comment. She gives no more details than that Harris was apparently looking into the idea that journalists in the 30s may have been responsible.

Your comment is doubly interesting to me, as it has long been a gut feeling of mine that the "Golden age" of JTR hoaxing seems to have been taking place around the middle of the 20th century, with the likes of McCormack, Dr.Dutton and all, and as you seem to be suggesting, I think the apparent age of the ink and paper mix, not bothering to copy James' real handwriting, the telling of a "traditional" JTR story, 5 victims, Dear Boss and Goulston Street all the work of Jack, etc.etc. fits beautifully with a creation of that era.

regards.

Paul

[Chris G.]

Hi Paul.

Thanks for that bit of info. I was quoting Shirley Harrison when I made that comment. She gives no more details than that Harris was apparently looking into the idea that journalists in the 30s may have been responsible.

Your comment is doubly interesting to me, as it has long been a gut feeling of mine that the "Golden age" of JTR hoaxing seems to have been taking place around the middle of the 20th century, with the likes of McCormack, Dr.Dutton and all, and as you seem to be suggesting, I think the apparent age of the ink and paper mix, not bothering to copy James' real handwriting, the telling of a "traditional" JTR story, 5 victims, Dear Boss and Goulston Street all the work of Jack, etc.etc. fits beautifully with a creation of that era.

regards.

Paul


Hi Paul B

Well no because the idea of the five canonicals only gelled after the Macnaghten memoranda were made public in 1959. Before that the idea of the eleven or so victims was prevalent, and thus for example Terence Robertson's inclusion of Fairy Fay as a Ripper victim in his Reynolds News article of 1950.

Chris

[Paul Butler]

Hi Chris.

Isn't 1959 in the middle of the 20th century then?

Paul B.

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris.

Isn't 1959 in the middle of the 20th century then?

Paul B.

It's not in the 1930's. :)

Chris

[Paul Butler]

You've lost me now Chris!

[Paul]

Hi Paul B

Well no because the idea of the five canonicals only gelled after the Macnaghten memoranda were made public in 1959. Before that the idea of the eleven or so victims was prevalent, and thus for example Terence Robertson's inclusion of Fairy Fay as a Ripper victim in his Reynolds News article of 1950.

Chris

Hi Chris,
Whoever wrote the diary couldn't extend beyond 1888 because Maybrick died in 1889, so I don't think the discovery of the Macnaghten memoranda can be used to post-date the diary's creation after 1959. That the diarist did not include Fairy Fay, Emma Smith or Martha Tabram is another question, but not one that helps much with dating.

As for Paul's suggestion that the diary was composed 1959, that's somewhat different from the suggestion that it was composed in the 1930s. In the decade between 1929 and 1939 there was a slight surge of interest in the Ripper, begining with Matters book in 1929. There was with Divall (1929). Adam's The Trial of George Chapman (1930), Wesley's Detective Days (1931), Neil's Forty Years of Manhunting, Dearden's Who Was Jack the Ripper (1935), Woodhall's Jack the Ripper (1935), Dew's I Caught Crippen (1938), and Stewart's Jack the Ripper (1939), plus assorted articles and references in biographies. This period, rather more than the late 1950s and 1960s, was, I think, a period when hack journalists may have shown interest in the Ripper and when one, having seen the success Matter's achieved with a book based on a (presumably) unseen foreign press article, may have sought to follow suit, but not having Matter's credibility needed something tangible and so created the diary. Such a date would explain many worrying features of the diary, albeit not the tin matchbox and the Poste House.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

Of course, another golden age of ripper hoaxes was the late 1880s and 1890s... ;)

What happened to the prediction, after the watch surfaced, that more and more shabby Maybrick hoaxes were bound to turn up? And all those who scoffed at the idea that any skill was required, and claimed that 'anyone' could knock up one of their own hoaxes over a rainy weekend and start milking the 'Dairy' cash cow for themselves? Haven't seen any evidence of this claim being put to the test.

This might not be logical but it bugs me...

"The Diary presents nothing new about the murders" :doh:

How would we know it was something new?

How could we accept anything as something new?

The Diary is a forgery because it presents nothing new and presents nothing new because it cannot as a forgery.....or whatever.

p

Exactly, Mr P.

This does not only apply to 'Sir Jim's' supposed experiences as the ripper, but to every single unknown in the diary, including Mrs Hammersmith, the other two alleged attacks (one in Manchester, the other one apparently there too, but not necessarily - another of those inevitable ambiguities of the language) and even little oddities such as: Christmas save the whores mole bonnett.

Such details can only be checked against the available historical record. If nothing is found there, the possibility must remain - however remote - that it's new information that may or may not be verifiable, in material yet to emerge.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Hi Paul.

Thanks for that. You've explained far better than I would have done.

I'm not trying to suggest the diary was created in the 30s any more than I'm trying to suggest it was written in the 50s. It's just a gut feeling of mine that a date anytime between say 1930 and 1970 would explain the dating evidence we have, and to me a period that could come up with the likely hoaxed "Eight little whores" poem, the phantom "Chronicles of Crime" etc. could also have produced the diary.

I wonder how much more likely the diary would have been accepted as real if it had been discoved 50 years ago, (if indeed it existed then), than in todays more cynical times?

regards.

Paul

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris,
Whoever wrote the diary couldn't extend beyond 1888 because Maybrick died in 1889, so I don't think the discovery of the Macnaghten memoranda can be used to post-date the diary's creation after 1959. That the diarist did not include Fairy Fay, Emma Smith or Martha Tabram is another question, but not one that helps much with dating. . . .


Hi Paul and Paul B

I agree that it doesn't help us much with dating. Except that if the diarist did use a modern book as source material, it would seem to me more likely that a book of our day, post-Macnaghten memoranda, might be more likely since he/she seems to cleave to the story that there were only five murders attributable to the killer. A pre-1959 writer might have tended to include those other murders that were known as the "Whitechapel murders" some eleven of them but he/she doesn't.

Chris

[Paul Butler]

Hi Chris, and point taken.

Five victims being McNaghten's opinion since at least 1894 of course, but readily available to the public only since 1959.

It's like the identical situation with Eddowes matchbox. Known about since 1888 but not readily available to the public until 1987.

Don't worry, I'm not going to go there again!

Sir Jim of the diary is selecting his JTR facts apparently from a variety of sources with absolutely no consistency or logic that I can find. But maybe he wasn't writing it with a logically minded public as his intended audience in the first place?

Could it be that Sir Jim's source was one that we are not aware of today? It would explain a lot.

Regards.

Paul

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris, and point taken.

Five victims being McNaghten's opinion since at least 1894 of course, but readily available to the public only since 1959.

It's like the identical situation with Eddowes matchbox. Known about since 1888 but not readily available to the public until 1987.

Don't worry, I'm not going to go there again!

Sir Jim of the diary is selecting his JTR facts apparently from a variety of sources with absolutely no consistency or logic that I can find. But maybe he wasn't writing it with a logically minded public as his intended audience in the first place?

Could it be that Sir Jim's source was one that we are not aware of today? It would explain a lot.

Regards.

Paul

Hi Paul

Since the story told in the Diary is a straight orthodox telling of the Ripper story as it is known today, even with some of the myths thrown in (Jack wrote letters, the rings by Chapman's feet, etc.) and there is the noticeable focus on Abberline as the murderer's chief foe as in the 1988 Michael Caine film "Jack the Ripper," I think this is a powerful argument that the source material for the Diary was a modern book and not either information someone in 1888 would have known or in the decades immediately subsequent to the Autumn of Terror.

Chris

[Paul Butler]

Hi Chris.

It's an argument alright, but where I think I differ here, and I'm sure this will be no surprise to you, is that I wouldn't describe is as a particularly powerful one. :-)

By "modern book" we must be talking Fido mustn't we? That was the only source of information about Kate's bloody matchbox available at the time you suggest it was written. Yet that book contains a perfectly good account of the Kelly crime scene that our diarist chooses to ignore completely!

Is it such a huge problem that the diary choses to focus on a highly visible copper who was deeply involved with the case, and who would have likely become quite well known on the streets of Whitechapel?

Looking at the diary's source for the ripper story doesn't seem to be getting us far does it? At least it hasn't so far. Looking at it in isolation from the other facts might give us a clue, but if you also consider such things as a likely Battlecrease origin, ink tests, the watch(!), etc. then it doesn't look so simple.

I won't tell Caz if you won't, but I think the suggestion Sir Jim repeated the "rings at Chapman's feet" myth might earn you some red ink!

Have a great weekend all.

regards.

Paul

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris.

It's an argument alright, but where I think I differ here, and I'm sure this will be no surprise to you, is that I wouldn't describe is as a particularly powerful one. :-)

By "modern book" we must be talking Fido mustn't we? That was the only source of information about Kate's bloody matchbox available at the time you suggest it was written. Yet that book contains a perfectly good account of the Kelly crime scene that our diarist chooses to ignore completely!


Yes although Martin Fido's book of 1988 was just the first that mentioned the police list. I imagine that there could have been parts of the Diary writing where penman let his imagination run away with him and didn't check his sources, an example being where he said he put the breasts on the side table.


Is it such a huge problem that the diary choses to focus on a highly visible copper who was deeply involved with the case, and who would have likely become quite well known on the streets of Whitechapel?


If you look at the contemporary press reports, as Jack the Ripper himself would have, Abberline would not have stood out as the obvious adversary, in fact there are any number of police officials that are mentioned, Inspector Spratling, Inspector Arnold, Inspector Reid, Commissioner Warren, etc., but it was the Michael Caine film which focused on Abberline as the chief wheel in the Ripper investigation.


Looking at the diary's source for the ripper story doesn't seem to be getting us far does it? At least it hasn't so far. Looking at it in isolation from the other facts might give us a clue, but if you also consider such things as a likely Battlecrease origin, ink tests, the watch(!), etc. then it doesn't look so simple.

I won't tell Caz if you won't, but I think the suggestion Sir Jim repeated the "rings at Chapman's feet" myth might earn you some red ink!


I'll wait to be corrected. :help:

[Stephen Leece]

Chris,
The BBC 1973 series Jack the Ripper makes great play of Abberline's 'importance', as did Donald McCormick in 1959. If the Thames-Lorimar production was such a great influence why was Godley not also included as a character in the text?

[Chris G.]

Chris,
The BBC 1973 series Jack the Ripper makes great play of Abberline's 'importance', as did Donald McCormick in 1959. If the Thames-Lorimar production was such a great influence why was Godley not also included as a character in the text?

Good point there, Stephen. Although since Abberline was superior to Godley, and it works in the story to just focus on Abberline, why include Godley?

Chris

[Stephen Leece]

Verisimilitude Chris. That's all.

Also if the Thames-Lorimar production is so influential why not make a hoax that fits Gull up? Similarly if McCormick is so influential why not stitch up Pedachenko instead? Why risk stitiching up someone who had 'apparently' never been connected before to the case? So- if it's a stitch-up, and the diary is a shabby hoax, as people keep claiming, would it not make sense if there had been an earlier tradition of Maybrick as the Ripper as I suggested last week?

[Paul]

I'm not trying to suggest the diary was created in the 30s any more than I'm trying to suggest it was written in the 50s. It's just a gut feeling of mine that a date anytime between say 1930 and 1970...[/QUOTE

Hi Paul,
Bearing in mind that I am not and did not seriously argue that the diary was a hoax created by a journalist in the 1930s, but was advancing that possibility to prevent the polarisation which sadly divided researchers into pro- and anti-camps, allow me, Paul, to just expand a little on why I preferred the late
1930s to a post-war period.

The later the date for the hoax the better because we can more easily explain many of the problems about content that way, but the later the day the more probable it becomes that Mike Barrett or someone associated with him was the boaxer. But if one takes the view that Mike had nothing to do with the forgery and did not know the diary was forged then one has to face up to all sorts of problematic questions, and these are exacerbated by various problems with the diary itself, such as the handwriting not resembling Maybrick's. Since I would expect that anyone post-Hitler diaries would have been fairly aware of the problems associated with producing a hoax, I would therefore expect the hoaxer to at least have made a stab at reproducing the handwriting, especially if they had gone to the effort of getting the period paper and ink.

The only way to overcome these problems is to envisage a situation in which no real effort was made, that an old book was bought, that someone wrote in the ink commonly available at that time, and did not attempt to imitate Maybrick's hand because examples of his handwriting were not easily available, and because no forensic examination of the document was anticipated. This points to an old forgery, to a time when such ink was commonly used.

So, having postulated an old hoax you have to ask what the purpose was in creating it and why it wasn't used. I suggest that it was created to make money, thus I suggest a journalist with an eye on a few article like Matters', and having done that I suppose that either the article was turned down or it was made unnecessary by outside events, which I suggest was WWII.

It so happens, for what it's worth, that this fits in which Billy Graham claiming to have inherited the diary at the end of WWII.

][QUOTE=Chris G.;38066]I agree that it doesn't help us much with dating. Except that if the diarist did use a modern book as source material, it would seem to me more likely that a book of our day, post-Macnaghten memoranda, might be more likely since he/she seems to cleave to the story that there were only five murders attributable to the killer. A pre-1959 writer might have tended to include those other murders that were known as the "Whitechapel murders" some eleven of them but he/she doesn't.

Sorry, Chris, I seem to be missing something here. The author of the diary supposes that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, so, since James Maybrick died in 1889, he couldn't have been responsible for murders committed after he was dead. A writer pre-1959 could therefore have been forced to pretty much end the sequence with Mary Kelly.

[Chris G.]

Sorry, Chris, I seem to be missing something here. The author of the diary supposes that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, so, since James Maybrick died in 1889, he couldn't have been responsible for murders committed after he was dead. A writer pre-1959 could therefore have been forced to pretty much end the sequence with Mary Kelly.


Hi Paul

I mean the pre-Polly Nichols murders aren't included: Fairy Fay, Emma Smith, Martha Tabram.

Chris

[Stephen Leece]

"So, having postulated an old hoax you have to ask what the purpose was in creating it and why it wasn't used. I suggest that it was created to make money, thus I suggest a journalist with an eye on a few article like Matters', and having done that I suppose that either the article was turned down or it was made unnecessary by outside events, which I suggest was WWII."

Presumably then the pub not being called the Poste House until the 1960s is a load of hot air then? If it's an old hoax why not include Tabram and Smith as victims then?

[Chris G.]

Verisimilitude Chris. That's all.

Also if the Thames-Lorimar production is so influential why not make a hoax that fits Gull up? Similarly if McCormick is so influential why not stitch up Pedachenko instead? Why risk stitiching up someone who had 'apparently' never been connected before to the case? So- if it's a stitch-up, and the diary is a shabby hoax, as people keep claiming, would it not make sense if there had been an earlier tradition of Maybrick as the Ripper as I suggested last week?

I'll have to look at your previous post about a possible early tradition that Maybrick was the Ripper but if the hoax originated out of Liverpool and you have a ready-made candidate, what you would do is take elements from those other accounts in books or movies and use your scenario instead of theirs. You will see that the Maybrick story comes fully-fledged and doesn't need Gull etc.

Chris

[Stephen Leece]

Possibly Chris- however there is a better candidate from the Socialist Republic of Scouseland than Maybrick- how about Frederick Deeming- already guilty of two sets of brutal killings, and already accused of being the Ripper. There had been rumours of a Deeming confession to the crimes- rumours that his legal people strenuously denied. Would he not be a better candidate if the hoax originated in Liverpool?

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

I haven't quite finished reading the latest posts to this thread, but I'll happily skip the red ink where Chris G is concerned. :)

I would, however, ask you all to consider what the real Jack's reaction might have been to reading in the newspapers that he had left Mary Kelly's breasts on the table.

Would he have thought:

a) "What nonsense! I distinctly remember exactly where I put those puppies."

b) "Well that's peculiar. I'm sure I didn't put them on the table with the other stuff. The medical man must have moved them."

c) "I don't recall putting them there, but I must have done. It's not something they'd get wrong if they stood there in daylight staring at them."

d) "The table it was bare, so I must have put them there, because it's all over the papers. I remember thinking of putting them by her feet, but I obviously thought again."

Albert Fish, shortly after abducting and cutting up a little girl called Grace, had a temporary mental block, during which he was convinced it was a boy he had killed. A rather more fundamental error, surely?

Albert's diary: "The boy he was there, so I cut him up here". An obvious shabby fake, using an unreliable source? ;)

For an early link between the Ripper and Maybrick cases, we have that cartoon from St Stephen's Review, which was unearthed by Stewart Evans and appears in Feldy's book. It features Jack on the left with his knife, Florence pleading for justice on the right and Sir Henry Matthews in the middle considering a pardon, quill pen poised.

It's not hard to imagine some wag at the time making a comment along the lines of: "Well if Florie is a murderess on the grounds of her adultery, then her husband may as well have been Jack the Ripper!"

Love,

Caz
X

[Stephen Leece]

I was wondering when someone was going to mention that illustration! Anyone for an early tradition that Maybrick was the Ripper? Also if Maybrick wrote the diary odds on he's off his face when he commits the murders. Stimulants make the memory shakey even for champion substance abusers.

[Magpie]

Hi Stephen.

Arsenic's effects are more physical than mental. Although it might make Jim aggravated and aggressive, it would not alter perception or memory.

[Stephen Leece]

Magpie,
Okay- let's say he has a load of arsenic and spends the evening hanging around the pub as well. (I'm going to shoehorn some sort of self-inflicted amnesia in somehow!). Artful speculation here I know but does anyone know what the effects of arsenic and alcohol combined would be, especially on a stressed mind?

[Magpie]

Hi Stephen.

I did post a pretty detailed description of the effects of arsenic over on the casebook some time back. It's pretty late here and I'm about to turn in by I will try and find it tomorrow and double check.

Arsenic was not exactly a "recreational" drug, and it's effects were largely cumulative. Think in terms of a upward "curve" occuring over a prolonged period of time, rather than a series of "spikes" that coincide with individual doses.

As to the effects of combining alcohol and arsenic, that's an interesting question, and I'll look into that. Other than one being a stimulant and the other a depressant, I can't think of any sort of synergistic effect between the two.

[robingoodfellow]

Hi All,

I would, however, ask you all to consider what the real Jack's reaction might have been to reading in the newspapers that he had left Mary Kelly's breasts on the table.

Would he have thought:

a) "What nonsense! I distinctly remember exactly where I put those puppies."

b) "Well that's peculiar. I'm sure I didn't put them on the table with the other stuff. The medical man must have moved them."

c) "I don't recall putting them there, but I must have done. It's not something they'd get wrong if they stood there in daylight staring at them."

d) "The table it was bare, so I must have put them there, because it's all over the papers. I remember thinking of putting them by her feet, but I obviously thought again."

Albert Fish, shortly after abducting and cutting up a little girl called Grace, had a temporary mental block, during which he was convinced it was a boy he had killed. A rather more fundamental error, surely?

Albert's diary: "The boy he was there, so I cut him up here". An obvious shabby fake, using an unreliable source? ;)

X

I like this train of thought Caz, it shows that the anti-diarists claim that the diary is fake because the breasts were in the wrong place is not reliable.

Robin, Bath

[robingoodfellow]

I was wondering when someone was going to mention that illustration! Anyone for an early tradition that Maybrick was the Ripper? Also if Maybrick wrote the diary odds on he's off his face when he commits the murders. Stimulants make the memory shakey even for champion substance abusers.

True. I think that the arsenic may be able to account for a lot of flaws in the diary, but the trouble is of course you can't prove this.

:alien:

[robingoodfellow]

Hi Stephen.

Arsenic's effects are more physical than mental. Although it might make Jim aggravated and aggressive, it would not alter perception or memory.

I'm not sure I accept that, everything has an effect on the brain as well as the body, since body and mind are linked. So air pollution, food, drink, alcohol, drugs, all these things have an effect on the mind. Having said this, I haven't yet looked at the effects of arsenic on the mind properly yet, so I am very interested in this particular topic if anyone knows anything more.

Any toxicologists here?

:frog:

[robingoodfellow]

Hi Stephen.

I did post a pretty detailed description of the effects of arsenic over on the casebook some time back. It's pretty late here and I'm about to turn in by I will try and find it tomorrow and double check.

Arsenic was not exactly a "recreational" drug, and it's effects were largely cumulative. Think in terms of a upward "curve" occuring over a prolonged period of time, rather than a series of "spikes" that coincide with individual doses.

As to the effects of combining alcohol and arsenic, that's an interesting question, and I'll look into that. Other than one being a stimulant and the other a depressant, I can't think of any sort of synergistic effect between the two.

Okay Magpie, I take back what I just said on this, seems like you're ahead of me on this one!

:clap2:

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Magpie, All,

Don't forget, the real James must have been like a walking medicine chest by November 1888. He wasn't only using arsenic and drinking alcohol. According to Maybrick author Bernard Ryan, James admitted to his new Liverpool doctor in November 1888 that he had been taking strychnine, nitro-hydrochloric acid and hydrate of potash, as well as several other drugs. He complained of 'ceaseless headaches over a period of three months' (ie from August 1888 :eek:), a numbness of the left leg and hand after smoking heavily or drinking too much wine, and of various skin eruptions. Dr Drysdale saw James three times in the November alone. If a record had come to light of one of these appointments being first thing on the morning of the 9th, the diary author would have had even more to worry about than the non-matching handwriting. :pout:

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul]

"So, having postulated an old hoax you have to ask what the purpose was in creating it and why it wasn't used. I suggest that it was created to make money, thus I suggest a journalist with an eye on a few article like Matters', and having done that I suppose that either the article was turned down or it was made unnecessary by outside events, which I suggest was WWII."

Presumably then the pub not being called the Poste House until the 1960s is a load of hot air then? If it's an old hoax why not include Tabram and Smith as victims then?

As ou will see at the end of post 22, I made that very point.

If it's an old hoax or a modern one, why not include Smith and (especially)Tabram?

[Paul Butler]

Afternoon all.

What an interesting set of posts over the weekend.

Hi Paul.

Thanks for clarifying your position regarding your suggestion that the 1930s might be the place to look for our diarist. That is precisely the point I was trying to make, though perhaps not as well as I might have done. Ignoring a few niggles about matchboxes and things, a date in the mid 20th century does allow quite a lot of other things to fall into place, and to my mind still makes a lot more sense than a centenary based creation.

Hi Caz.

I've got to agree with you on just about every point here. Arsenic is highly addictive, and to suggest that anything so highly addictive isn't in some way mind altering over the longer term doesn't make sense. Combine that with the effects of all the other things we know James was taking, (and a few others we probably don't know about), and who knows what effect it could have had?

The idea that whoever it was in Miller's Court that night was off his face on either alcohol, or any combination of noxious substances is quite an appealing one to me.

Hi everyone else.

I could never agree that the diary got anything wrong about the Miller's Court crime scene. It's much cleverer and a load more subtle than that. Sir Jim didn't just copy an incorrect description out of an old newspaper account or book. (He had a copy of Fido anyway if it's modern).

He gives us an account he had apparently read in the paper, and then later in the diary, after having given it some thought, he queries his own recollections. It is a superb bit of writing, and like so much else, makes the text that much more compelling than a list of facts and events, no matter how accurate or otherwise we think they are in 2008.

We shouldn't forget either that Sir Jim actually claims seven! The usual five and a practice run in Manchester that may or may not have proved fatal, and a half hearted effort after Kelly, (no pun meant),when all the pleasure had gone out of it. I think he would have been pushing it a bit to have also claimed Tabram et al.

Regards to all.

Paul

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Paul,

I know this will be a very controversial idea, but if one examines the wording in the diary concerning the 'half hearted effort after Kelly, when all the pleasure had gone out of it' (a superb way of putting it!), without assumption or prejudice, then I cannot see why an argument could not be made for Rose Mylett fitting the bill.

'Sir Jim' fancies the idea of Manchester for a repeat performance after Miller's Court, as Christmas 1888 approaches: My first was in Manchester so why not my next? If I was to do the same as the last, that would throw the fools into a panick...

Before he gets to Manchester, he appears to be sitting in his Liverpool office one day before taking the train back to Aigburth, where he writes about returning to London: will have to take up lodgings on my return. Middlesex Street that was a joke... [He has evidently given up his small room there.] My head spins will somehow have to find the strength for my journey home. The devil take this city, it is too cold for me. Tomorrow I will make Lowry suffer. The thought will thrill me on the journey home.

Life goes on at work, but Sir Jim is now 'very tired' and yearns for peace, but he has a 'Titanic' moment and writes: I know in my heart I will go on. :whistle: He will be in Manchester within a few days and believes he will feel a great deal better when he has repeated on his last performance. I wonder if I can improve on my fiendish deeds. Will wait and see, no doubt I will think of something. He mentions that Christmas is coming.

We see no further references to Manchester, so the most we can do is presume Sir Jim is meant to have gone as planned. We don't know if he is supposed to have found a ripping opportunity there, but he can hardly have been given an opportunity anywhere to repeat or improve on Kelly in the run up to Christmas, because the real ripper failed to do so anywhere.

The next entry, which is immediately followed by an observation that the children enjoyed Christmas, is a mish-mash of colliding thoughts, where Florie now has eyes on another whore master, but this time Sir Jim could not cut like my last, because visions of her [Kelly? Florie? a combination of the two?] flooded back as he struck. 'Like my last' and 'struck' are ambiguous, because he could mean he was unable to cut in the same way or to the same extent this time when he struck with his knife. But equally he could mean he failed to use his knife at all, unlike last time, after initiating the attack with his hands for example.

I tried to quosh all thoughts of love. I left her for dead, that I know. [Has he yet to see confirmation in his newspaper?] It did not amuse me. There was [no] thrill. I have showered my fury on the bitch... He appears to have punished Florie this time for her roving eye and for his own dwindling pleasure.

Where's the evidence that the text reflects an attack in Manchester, where the opportunities may have been fewer, and where Sir Jim may have decided the going would be too tough for a Whitechapel murderer past his prime to change horses and courses now? Could he not have gone back to the field he knew best for a last-ditch attempt in failing health?

Rose Mylett was found dead at 4.15 am on December 20th, her tummy full of meat and spuds (while Mary had fish and spuds in hers).

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Morris]

Sorry, I have edited the above a few times as I seem to make new observations each time I read Sir Jim's words! He drives me nuts. :loco:

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Sorry, I have edited the above a few times as I seem to make new observations each time I read Sir Jim's words! He drives me nuts. :loco:

Love,

Caz
X

You and me alike Caz.

What an interesting idea, and guess who will be digging out his diary tonight to check it out?

I had always interpreted "could not cut like my last", as "did not cut at all", but I can see how it could also mean "did not cut in the same way", although the fact he only "left her for dead", implies very strongly that no cutting at all was what was meant.

Regards.

Paul

[Paul Butler]

Afternoon and Happy Birthday Caz.

I had a look at that part of the diary last night, and I can’t say I’m any the wiser!

I think it all depends how literally you read it and whether we should assume that Sir Jim’s “mish-mash of colliding thoughts” should be treated as if in some sort of logical sequence, or rather as chaotic and confused ideas all thrown in together.

Although Manchester isn’t mentioned by name after his “half-hearted attempt”, he does say “Thomas was in fine health.” Which to me is almost as good as saying “I’m back from Manchester now.” It seems a fairly safe bet to me that he was in Manchester when he “left her for dead.”

What about the later entry though?

“Damn it damn it damn it the bastard almost caught me, curse him to hell, I will cut him up next time, so help me. A few minutes and I would have done, bastard. I will seek him out, teach him a lesson. No one will stop me. Curse his black soul. I curse myself for striking too soon, I should have waited until it was truly quiet so help me I will take all next time and eat it.”

Is this referring to Abberline? If so, this is another, later bungled attack in Whitechapel, London surely?

Wasn't Rose Mylett throttled with a cord?

Regards.

Paul.

[Caroline Morris]

Thanks Paul. I spent my birthday away from the internet. :)

'I should have waited until it was truly quiet' must surely be a reference to Whitechapel. So it does look like he is back in the old hunting ground after Christmas.

Good point about Thomas. Sir Jim appears to be making a direct link between seeing Thomas and Christmas with the children. But it's not clear how soon before the big day this seasonal trip to see his brother takes place, or even that Jim goes alone to see Thomas in Manchester rather than Thomas coming to Aigburth to see Jim, Florie and the kids there. I have no problem with Jim going to Manchester at some point, but what if he simply doesn't get an opportunity to attack anyone while he's there, or it's just too bloody cold for him? Might he not be drawn like a magnet back to London, if the compulsion is too strong to put on hold until after Christmas?

We do have another very good example of Sir Jim not always following through his ideas, in a passage which also contains several parallels with the one we are discussing here. In fact it concerns his Manchester encounter back in the Spring of '88:

There was no pleasure as I squeezed, I felt nothing. Do not know if I have the courage to go back to my original idea. Manchester was cold and damp very much like this hell hole. Next time I will throw acid over them. The thought of them ridling [or writhing perhaps?] and screaming while the acid burns deep thrills me, ha, what a joke it would be if I could gorge an eye out and leave it by the whores body for all to see, to see, ha, ha.

Notice that even in the middle of such foul fantasies Sir Jim has time for another of his side-splitting double entendres: a gouged out eye which everyone but its owner can see. He's like Basil Brush on drugs. :eek:

Actually, I have no problem with Sir Jim using a cord to throttle a victim if he can think of 'gorging' out their eyes or using acid on them.

There was a genuine double event here in Croydon just a few years back, involving the attempted strangulation of one woman, who survived because witnesses to the initial attack chased off the offender, followed before the night was out by the brutal murder of another woman by the same man (caught on cctv cruising the main road for his next victim, and later convicted), who used a lump of wood this time to batter her repeatedly about the head. No doubt Sir Jim would have seen another joke there.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris G.]

Hi Caz and Paul

Mmmmmm. Why be a Ripper with a knife and a distinctive signature in Whitechapel and a strangler in Manchester? It doesn't quite make sense, that distinction. I will agree that some serial killers do vary their modus operandi, however.

Chris

[Caroline Morris]

Why indeed Chris?

But why would a hoaxer introduce invented 'new' attacks anyway, when they could simply claim to have served their apprenticeship (or ended their murdering days) with a fully documented but unsolved non-canonical or two?

And of course, it wouldn't do for a hoaxer to have Jack making too much 'sense'. ;)

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike Covell]

I was under the impression that serial Killers change their Modus Operandi according to the current situation, if the "alleged" strangulation worked, why change it!

That passage has always worried me.

I expect someone has looked at unsolved murders in Manchester between 1887 and 1888?

Mike

[Chris G.]

Why indeed Chris?

But why would a hoaxer introduce invented 'new' attacks anyway, when they could simply claim to have served their apprenticeship (or ended their murdering days) with a fully documented but unsolved non-canonical or two?

And of course, it wouldn't do for a hoaxer to have Jack making too much 'sense'. ;)

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Of course it is one way round one of my objections to the premise of the Diary: why would Maybrick go all the way to London to murder and get revenge on his Liverpool wife? (Because the hoaxer knew that's where the Whitechapel murders took place, silly.) By giving a kill or two closer to home it makes sending him down to London not seem so strange. :happy:

Chris

[Stephen Leece]

Discretion Chris- when I'm in the Gulf I drive three hours to Dubai (the one major population centre there) for alcohol. I could drive 20 minutes to the nearest hotel but within seconds the entire western region would know that I drink. Much easier to go to a big city where I'm unknown and there's more Westerners and I can blend in. You need to keep in mind Victorian patriarchal values here when dealing with this one (assuming your suspect is from the upper stratum of society).

[Caroline Morris]

Absolutely Stephen.

Plus the real Jim was said to be a frequent visitor to London; plus his brother lived in London's West End; plus his mistress came from London's East End; plus it emerged after his death that he had been a notorious womaniser and debauchee, who frequented a brothel at least two or three times a week when in Norfolk, Virginia. I'm quite sure he would have used prostitutes wherever he went. It was also said that the reason he and Florie ceased marital relations in the last two years of his life was his fear of 'injuring' any children he may otherwise have fathered with her - 'injuring' thought to be a euphemism for passing on a sexually transmitted disease. And that's one of the milder interpretations one could put on such a word.

Taking all the above circumstances into account, it appears perfectly fitting to me that the diary's 'Sir Jim' would choose not to dirty his own doorstep when acting out any of his fantasies: the real James would have had absolutely no need and no reason to do so either. Manchester for a spot of murder? Familiar to Jim, yes, and far enough away, but not ideal - too cold and damp. London? Milder, much further afield and more anonymous, with arguably more excuse for him to go there on a regular basis.

Hi Mike,

You ask: Why change it?

The alleged strangulation may have 'worked' (although it was an assumption on Sir Jim's part that the 'whore' was now 'with her maker', if he fled without being sure he had squeezed all the life out of her). But I don't see why the relevant passage has always worried you: There was no pleasure as I squeezed, I felt nothing... Next time I will throw acid over them...

Seems pretty obvious to me why Sir Jim would 'change it': to give him the thrills he evidently wanted but found he couldn't get from merely squeezing!

I also think the diarist was on the right track to include the odd fantasy that the real Jack never acted out.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Absolutely Caz.

I was just reading the "Progress so far" topics, looking at what advances have been made since 1988, and that the main advances have been in ruling out several major suspects, rather than ruling anybody in.

I absolutely agree with that, but just for a moment, assume that the diary doesn't have the "issues" that it does with provenance, dating evidence etc. etc.

I'm going to get put down as a nutter for even suggesting this, but Sir Jim makes a damned good Jack, when compared to all the others. Known user of prostitutes, drug addict and hypochondriac, real evidence of violence towards Florrie, real evidence of an east end connection, a reasonable motive, no alibi, an American connection if one is needed. Need I go on?

Compared with Druitt, d'Onston, Gull, Uncle Jack, Sickert etc. he's a way more believable Jack. O.K. we've got the likes of Chapman as an example of a known murderer in the frame, but whoever decided to frame James, whenever that was, did a damned sight better job than most in picking out a "likely one".

I'm going for a lie down now.

Regards,

Paul

[Stephen Leece]

That's true Paul, but the point I was making and probably everyone else was, was that you can't actually put the knife in anyone's hand. You could with Maybrick, if the diary had a concrete 1888 date and indisputedly matched a known sample of his handwriting.
Given that that is not the case, his character flaws suggest a good Jack- however I would ask, 'how representative is James Maybrick of the general Victorian gent?' Was drug-taking and whoring the norm, behind a thin veneer of genteelness (is that a word? If not, it is now!)? How can the situation vis a vis whoring and drug abuse be demonstrated statistically?

[Paul Butler]

I couldn't agree more Stephen.

"Genteelness" sounds a perfectly good word to me, although I'd probably draw the line at anyone trying to invent "Genteelize". Somebody said "Alphabetize" to me the other day. They should have them shot for abuse of the language!

I don't suppose it would ever be possible to compare the goings on of James Maybrick with your bog standard, common-or-garden, Victorian businessman. That sort of private life was kept very private of course, and many a blind eye was turned.

We do have some pretty good evidence though, that he was far from your average respectable Victorian gent with quietly obedient missus in tow!

It's just that when compared to a Monty Druitt for example, (to me one of the least plausible Jacks of the lot), a man like James fits the bill so much better.

The provenance and date of the diary will be discovered, of that I'm fairly confident, and whether Sir Jim lives or dies in the ever shrinking list of "likely ones", will of course be very dependant on that.

Until then, he's still one of the more interesting ones by a long chalk.

regards.

Paul

[admin tim]

Well, there sure was great interest in and patronage of the glamorous West End bordellos of the day, I should imagine many a Victorian gent told his wife he was going to his club and then took off for Miss Emily's. See http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=11507#post11507

And if Conan Doyle is any guide, drug use by Victorian men was quite commonplace. Opium dens and seven-percent-solutions come immediately to mind. Controlled substances of today were quite readily available then and were no doubt abused by more than just James Maybrick.

[Chris G.]

That's true Paul, but the point I was making and probably everyone else was, was that you can't actually put the knife in anyone's hand. You could with Maybrick, if the diary had a concrete 1888 date and indisputedly matched a known sample of his handwriting.
Given that that is not the case, his character flaws suggest a good Jack- however I would ask, 'how representative is James Maybrick of the general Victorian gent?' Was drug-taking and whoring the norm, behind a thin veneer of genteelness (is that a word? If not, it is now!)? How can the situation vis a vis whoring and drug abuse be demonstrated statistically?

Hi Paul and Stephen

I think James Maybrick makes for a very good Jack in that he seems to epitomize the hypocrisy of the Victorian era so he nicely fits the idea that the Whitechapel murderer was a gentleman who maintained a veneer of respectability but who lived another life.

Maybrick is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde all in one, without going to the monstrous extreme of Hyde in terms of the animalistic transformation in the Robert Louis Stevenson tale. And he wasn't a doctor but a notorious patient and drug abuser.

Despite the appeal of Maybrick to us today as a potential Ripper, that still doesn't make James Maybrick into Jack. Indeed, the witness sightings, particularly the description given by Lawende, call for the murderer having been a younger man, a local working class man or a sailor not an older middle class type like Maybrick.

Chris

[Paul Butler]

Afternoon all.

I think what makes James stand out from the rest of Victorian middle class gents is the rather spectacular way he finished up, and the vast amount we know about him and his family life as a result. We have a possibly unique window into the life of an extraordinary family. Even the bit players in the Maybrick saga are interesting in themselves.

There can't be another ripper suspect with such a well documented life, (and death!), as James, and in very many respects he fits Jack's shoes perfectly.

I'd go as far as to say that he fits Jack's shoes better than anyone else on the list. If only it wasn't all because of a dodgy diary!

I do wonder though, if the reason for including James is much worse than an ex police inspector "fitting up" a conveniently dead barrister who just chose the "wrong" time to top himself, or a latter day ripper author "fitting up" a very implausible hospital in-patient as some sort of attempt to deflect the limelight away from the diary!

It's very unlikely that Jack was anyone in the list of course, I fully appreciate that fact, but without the more colourful characters, the subject would get very dry and boring!

If you look at the existing photograph of James taken a year or so before the ripper murders, I really dont think he looks his age at all. Perhaps surprising for a drug user of several years. Where are the wrinkles and bags under the eyes? Would James have gone out a murderin' in business suit and top hat?

Regards.

Paul

[R.J.Palmer]

Harris told us all those years ago that he was about to expose his “nest of forgers”. He never did because he couldn’t. I strongly suspect he couldn’t because they never existed. Harris himself moved on to investigating the possibility that the diary was the work of journalists in the 1930s, so even he didn’t seem to have much faith in his own original ideas did he?

Hi Paul - No offense, mate, but it might be useful if you cite your sources for these claims. Thanks.

I was following the Great Diary debate quite closely back then, and I seem to reacall that the claim that Harris came to suspect the diary was created "in the 1930s" was the mistaken notion of Stanley Danger, or someone in the Feldman camp. Harris denied it.

It was painfully obvious from both his posts on Casebook, and from his final article on the Maybrick Diary (which was a review of the Linder, Morris, and Skinner book that appeared in Ripper Notes) that Harris did not abandon the Barrett, Kane, and A.N. Other theory. Indeed, one of the main thrusts of that last review was to argue that the sample of the diary text reprinted in Ripper Diary was not representative of the text, and did not show a certain idiosyncrasy that is apparent in the diary's handwriting. That, of couse, strongly suggests that Harris was still arguing for the 'Kane' theory.

In brief, the "k" in the diarist's handwriting is of unusual formation. As with all handwriting, it varies, but there are dozens of examples of this unusual "K" throughout the Diary's text, and it is very similar to the "k" in the written correspondence by a certain Mr. Kane of Liverpool, (who was a friend of the late Tony Devereaux's). Linder, Morris, and Skinner, meanwhile, reprinted a sample from the Diary that did not show this idiosyncrasy, with a caption to the effect that Harris was all wet.

After reading the Ripper Notes review, I checked with a facsimile copy of the Diary, and came to the conclusion that Harris was right. The diary's handwriting does have that strange formation. Whether it is Kane's handwriting I cannot say, but it looks similar enough to make me wonder.

I am also of the impresssion that Harris was working on a full length book about the Diary at the time of his death, so I don't think we ever heard his last words on the subject. Despite your suggestion, I am strongly of the opinion that he never wavered from his belief that it is a recent hoax. Peace, RP

[Caroline Morris]

Hi RJ,

Good grief, you must think me and my co-authors terminally thick and terminally crooked! The available samples of Citizen Kane's handwriting appear on pages 230 and 231 of Ripper Diary (and if there are better ones in existence blame those who held onto them!) and they contain three examples of his upper case K and two of his lower case k. The idiosyncrasy (the z shape forming the bottom right-hand stroke of the K) can be clearly seen in the upper case examples and slightly less clearly in the lower case examples. Journalist Stephen Grey noticed it in Kane's signature (see page 248), so it made sense to us to use an example of an upper case K in the diary for direct comparison purposes. We found one - in the passage naming Kelly (I don't think I could find any other examples, but I'm sure you will have checked this for yourself), so we placed it on page 232, right after the Kane samples, so that readers could see for themselves whether the K of Kelly has the clear z that the K in Kane has or whether it's a case of amateur document examiners clutching at straws.

You make it sound like we deliberately rejected hundreds of K's and k's in the diary that would have given our funny little game away, and picked the least striking example of Kane's idiosyncrasy in the hope that nobody would notice.

Well thanks, but that's about as far from the truth as it's possible to get.

All readers have to do now is to look at the page in the diary after the Kelly passage. It's easy because it's the last page in the diary and there's a lower case k in the penultimate line:

Jack the Ripper

If the bottom right-hand stroke of the k resembles a z, or if the whole letter looks like any of the K's or k's in the Kane samples, then I must be looking at a different diary. :faint:

Love,

Caz
X

PS I know what many people think of the late Tony Devereux, but would it hurt to spell his name correctly once in a while? It doesn't help if you are trying to come across as super observant when it comes to k's and z's.

PPS The Battlecrease documentation lets Devereux, Kane, the Barretts (and whoever A.N. Other may have been) off the hook for creating the thing, even though the police did the same job years ago. So it's all water under the bridge really.

[Caroline Morris]

In fact, there are also three lower case k's in the Kelly passages that appear on page 232 of Ripper Diary:

take
striking
ask

So apparently we are meant to have found the only four examples in the diary that don't bear the mark of Kane - all in two short consecutive passages.

:banghead:

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Hi Paul - No offense, mate, but it might be useful if you cite your sources for these claims. Thanks.

Despite your suggestion, I am strongly of the opinion that he never wavered from his belief that it is a recent hoax. Peace, RP

Hi RJ.

No problem at all. I didn't go into great detail on that post as we had covered it elsewhere. My source for suggesting that Harris had gone off on another track, looking at a possible connection with 30s journalists was Shirley Harrison.

Paul Begg, on this forum, explained to me that it was at his suggestion that Harris considered that as a possibilty, to maybe help to find an explanation somewhere in between the rapidly polarising state of affairs that existed back then, i.e. genuine or modern fake with nothing in between even being looked at.

My contention was, and still is, that if Harris was prepared to look at other possibilities, as I believe he may have been, then his absolute certainty as to his "nest of forgers" in Liverpool was in reality nothing of the sort.

I have to say that I really thought the "Kane" debate was long dead and gone. I was part of the Casebook discussions back then, and to be honest with you, Kane's handwriting is about as similar to the diary as is the real James's in my estimation. I have seen as much of it as is shown in Caz's book and on Casebook, but if there's more out there it would be good to see it.

Depending on whether or not you are prepared to accept Keith Skinner's Battlecrease provenance as a given for the time being, this is probably all "old hat" now in any case. As Caz so rightly says, it lets those who we assume were Harris's "nest" clean off the hook anyway.

Best regards RJ.

Paul

[Chris G.]

In fact, there are also three lower case k's in the Kelly passages that appear on page 232 of Ripper Diary:

take
striking
ask

So apparently we are meant to have found the only four examples in the diary that don't bear the mark of Kane - all in two short consecutive passages.

:banghead:

Love,

Caz
X

Does this mean that the KKK did it??? :eek:

Chris

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Chris,

Makes about as much sense as Citizen Kane penning it, all things considered. ;)

It really beggars belief when the amateur document examiners who imagine they recognise Kane's k's in the diary scoff at some imagined group of pro-diarists who are supposedly claiming that they recognise Maybrick's hand there. I'm not sure anyone has ever claimed that the writing resembles any authenticated Maybrick document. So who are the biggest wishful thinkers?

According to Stephen Powell, our Gerry Kane is one extraordinary man. A cabinet maker in 1979 (when he witnessed Tony D's will), he apparently graduated to diary forging a decade later while coping with a dodgy ticker (a few years before the other dodgy ticker arrived on the scene), then appeared across the Mersey at Birkenhead a decade after that, at the tender age of 43 (when his old mate Tony D would have been 66 had he lived that long), but managed to hop back again to Liverpool just in time to help the people looking for the diary forger by handing over samples of his handwriting in 1999. No wonder he aged so quickly afterwards that Melvin Harris was soon urging everyone to leave the poor old stick alone, furious that he was being accused of fingering the frail old gent as the 'obvious' penman. This frail old gent was not even 50 if Stephen found the right Gerard Kane.

I tell you, if I had a pound for every delicious black comedy drama one could wring from the diary saga I'd be a wealthy woman.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Morning Caz.

I re-read that chapter of your book last night, and I've got to agree that you have to be truly desperate to connect Kane's handwriting with that of the diary. Particularly based on the formation of a single letter!

That strange little wiggle in Kane's Ks isn't really duplicated in the diary anywhere.

Although I can understand why he might have been suspected by Harris in the first place based on Devereux's will, after getting hold of the later and better example of his handwriting it is obvious to me that the matter should have dropped there and then. It seems that for Harris this is exactly what did happen.

Have you ever noticed the distinct similarity of Inspector Swanson's handwriting with the diary? Take a look at "afterwards" in the marginalia, and "after" in the diary. Take a look at the forward slope of both sets of handwriting and the general scrappiness of both. There are similarities way beyond that of the similarity of just one letter.

Did Swanson write the diary? Of course he didn't.

I've got an old family autograph book at home, and I could honestly make out a good case for my Great-Grandma being the diary author based on her general late 19th/early 20th century handwriting style if I wanted to!

regards,

Paul

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Paul,

Well a few of us did a double-take in Wolvers, actually, when a ripper case document was put up as part of one of the talks (Sir Robert will know, but I think it may have been a report concerning Eddowes?) and I wondered at first if someone was mucking about and showing us a page from the diary! The writing style appeared similar enough to challenge that other myth about the diary not looking remotely Victorian. :)

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Morning Caz.

Yes it's really not that hard to find plenty of late 19th century documents with some striking similarities to the diary handwriting style if you try. You don't even need to try that hard either.

Looking through this old autograph book is quite educational with all the different inks and nibs used. Some entries have faded, some are as bright as the day they were written, some have considerable "bronzing" and some none at all.

There's certainly nothing wrong with the diary's handwriting style that means it can't be of an 1889 vintage, when there are plenty of examples about to prove that not everybody wrote everything in "Victorian" copperplate.

In fact, I should imagine that the diary's everyday style of writing would be harder for a hoaxer to create than a more stylised "Victorian" hand. The diary writing looks quite natural and unforced, apart from the apparent attempt to emulate the "Dear Boss" style copperplate at the end where the writer has failed miserably to get even close.

Whilst on the subject of kicking "K". What about the astonishing similarity between the "ks" in Maybrick in both the watch and James's marriage license?
Using "handwriting" comparisons alone, you'd be hard pressed to say that the real James didn't put it there!

Regards.

Paul

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Paul,

Yes, I must admit I was a bit floored when a K for Kane promoter was totally unimpressed by our watch engraver's k for Maybrick.

Love,

Caz
X

[R.J.Palmer]

Good grief, you must think me and my co-authors terminally thick and terminally crooked!

I never said you were either crooked, nor thick. I merely disagree with the opinons of you & your co-authors, specifically where you state quite positively that there is no resemblance in the handwriting.

Harris--and I don't have his review in front of me-- counter-argued that there were many examples of the crooked K. When his review first came out, I checked his claims against Shirley's book, and I'm afraid I have to still disagree with you and Paul Butler. I went back and carefully checked, and found any number of examples; I once posted these examples at Ryder's site. I know I'm not alone, because others have also commented that the handwriting is similar. Again, I am neither insisting, nor denying that it is Kane's. I am merely agreeing with Harris that there is similarity.

Of course, my non-professional opinion, as you suggest, is worthless. But then, so is yours and Paul's. You say 'tomåto,' I say 'tomato,' and, as such, the current conversation doesn't appear to be going anywhere. To convince the skeptics, and settle the matter, it would take someone like Audrey Giles comparing the diary with a longer sample from Citizen Kane, but Kane was hardly cooperative when people were knocking on his door, if I recall. And then, of course, Giles would be in a ticklish situation legally. Which brings us back to the main problem with anyone who wants to examine the 'modern fake' theory: their inability to carry on something that would be akin to a criminal investigation. The only one who attempted to get that ball rolling in recent years was Ivor Edwards, and since Robert Smith had no desire to file any charges against Barrett, the whole thing fell through. There is no law against writing a book about an alleged forgery; there is only a law against selling a forgery to an unwitting dupe. As for Melvin Harris, he was a writer and researcher. He was not a cop. He did not have the ability to issue warrants or force witnesses to speak with him. He could not go into the Barrett's dust bin. He had to work with what he could drum-up in the public domain. So, although I cannot speak for the hard-lined Diary skeptics, I suspect that Paul's implication that he failed to find the forger is neither here, nor there, as far as they are concerned, since most of them don't believe an in-depth investigation of Barrett and Graham was ever possible, at least not in the way that was needed.

I have more or less withdrawn from any discussion of the Maybrick Diary, because I think the debate has gone way over-the-top in the 'bad feelings' department. I also dont' think it is going anywhere useful. I played my role in that nastiness, and am sorry for it. I think there are reasonable and intelligent people who believe there may be 'something in it,' and I no longer wish to force my opinon down their throats. I simply believe the textual evidence for a modern fake (coupled with the suspicious behavior of the Barretts) is much more compelling than the rather vague scientific evidence. I have no comment on Keith's provenance. He's been in this business for decades now, and must be painfully aware that he's going to face a tough crowd. The skeptics aren't going to take anything on faith, and will demand to see the evidence. It is my hunch that a new provenance wont' help much. A document that has four published provenances isn't much better than a document that has none, if you know what I mean. The public will still be wondering about those other two or three that they had already been given.

I do have a question for you, Caz, if you don't mind. Was any reason ever given why Mike Barrett was a no-show at the Liverpool 'trial' last summer? His pending attendance was announced with great fanfare, and then he was conspicuous by his absence.

[R.J.Palmer]

According to Stephen Powell, our Gerry Kane is one extraordinary man. A cabinet maker in 1979 (when he witnessed Tony D's will), he apparently graduated to diary forging a decade later while coping with a dodgy ticker (a few years before the other dodgy ticker arrived on the scene), then appeared across the Mersey at Birkenhead a decade after that, at the tender age of 43 (when his old mate Tony D would have been 66 had he lived that long), but managed to hop back again to Liverpool just in time to help the people looking for the diary forger by handing over samples of his handwriting in 1999.

I have no idea on what the above confusion is referring to, as I haven't been reading Steve Powell's writings for several months. I reckon it refers to the 'Gerard Kane' who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, as reported in the Wirral Globe some years ago. I looked into this sometime back, 2 or 3 years ago roughly, with the help of someone in the UK, and the man's name was almost certainly Gerald Kane. The paper missprinted it. He was born around 1954, whereas the 'real' Gerard Kane was born in 1938, and married a woman named Ann in 1966. This 'real' Kane lived within twelve American blocks of Barrett (less than a mile) and he may have attended the same Catholic club where Barrett met Graham. A firmer link hasn't been established, as far as I know, other than that both men obviously knew Devereux. It is also unknown (at least to me) if there was any relationship between Gerard K. and Gerald K. Undoubtedly, there is much information on this 'clique' gathered over the years by UK Diary researchers, but neither the 'pro' nor the 'anti' side has seen fit to make any of it public. They'll all be dead eventually, and that will be the end of it. This opinion probably won't be appreciated, but I suspect if a Maybrick film was ever made, the whole thing would unravel rather soon. Investigative reporters seem to get to the bottom of these things quickly, because mass publicity and t.v. cameras seem to loosen people's lips. One man's opinion. That's it for me.

[Paul Butler]

Hi RJ.

Well it certainly was all the nastiness that caused the whole debate to stagnate the way it did, and I'm glad that now at last its possible to have a resonable discussion without it. I hope you do hang about on this topic RJ, as its always good to hear all properly thought through opinions no matter what they are.

There certainly are a few intelligent people who think there might just be a little more to this diary than meets the eye, and with good reasons too, and I'd like to think I'm one of them.

I'm not trying to be funny when I say I can't see any similarity with Kane's writing and the diary, and that I can find much greater similarities with the handwriting of others who patently didn't write the thing.

I've scoured the whole diary for an example of a K or a k with the little wiggle in it like Kane's and I honestly can't find a single one. I don't suppose comparing an upper case "K" with lower case "k"s is particularly scientific anyhow!

Like I said before, I can see why Harris chose to look into Kane based on that signature, but can also fully appreciate why he didn't seem to pursue it after seeing a better example.

As far as a new provenance goes, I don't see any problem with that as long as this one has a reasonable degree of proof to back it up, something we haven't had before. Any reasonable person would assess it on that basis, and if satisfied, conclude that either all or part of the previous unverified and admittedly awful provenance was a pack of lies.

If given a choice between one of the best ripper researchers there is and Barrett, I don't think there's really any competition do you? There are admittedly one or two who have dug themselves in so deep with the idea that the diary is modern that no degree of proof otherwise would dislodge them from that position, but that of course is their problem.

I agree that progress has been painfully slow, but surely we're now in a better position than we were 10 years ago?

Thanks for joining in.

regards.

Paul

[Caroline Morris]

Hi RJ,



In brief, the "k" in the diarist's handwriting is of unusual formation. As with all handwriting, it varies, but there are dozens of examples of this unusual "K" throughout the Diary's text, and it is very similar to the "k" in the written correspondence by a certain Mr. Kane of Liverpool, (who was a friend of the late Tony Devereaux's). Linder, Morris, and Skinner, meanwhile, reprinted a sample from the Diary that did not show this idiosyncrasy, with a caption to the effect that Harris was all wet.



Hi RJ,

With the greatest respect, you implied above that the two consecutive diary passages we selected (containing 3 lower case k’s and 1 upper case K) were atypical because they lacked any k’s that resembled the unusual formation identified in the samples Kane handed over. Whether you thought we singled out these 4 supposedly rare instances by accident or design, at least we agree that they don’t support a case against Kane, which, if nothing else, should indicate to you how tricky it is to compare very limited samples. If just those two passages of the diary had survived, we’d have been left to presume the k’s were typical of the author and nothing unusual, or to argue that a forger’s idiosyncrasy had been deliberately disguised.



I never said you were either crooked, nor thick. I merely disagree with the opinons of you & your co-authors, specifically where you state quite positively that there is no resemblance in the handwriting.

Harris… counter-argued that there were many examples of the crooked K… I went back and carefully checked, and found any number of examples; I once posted these examples at Ryder's site…

I'm having trouble locating where we stated in our book that there is ‘no resemblance in the handwriting’. The readers can judge this for themselves in any case. What we do state is that it is self-evident from the example on page 232 that the idiosyncratic k is not there. Since you repeat the rather bold claim here, that you found ‘any number of examples’ in the diary, which you posted on the casebook, I’d be very much obliged if you could do a much simpler thing for me this time round and just direct me to a page or two in the diary where I can find the distinctive z which forms the bottom right-hand stroke of the letter k in Kane’s handwriting, as can be seen in Ripper Diary. Thank you.



…To convince the skeptics, and settle the matter, it would take someone like Audrey Giles comparing the diary with a longer sample from Citizen Kane, but Kane was hardly cooperative when people were knocking on his door, if I recall. And then, of course, Giles would be in a ticklish situation legally. Which brings us back to the main problem with anyone who wants to examine the 'modern fake' theory: their inability to carry on something that would be akin to a criminal investigation…

Frankly I have always found such comments from you astonishing. Firstly, why would you expect anyone to be cooperative with a stranger who knocks on his door wanting handwriting samples for the purposes of looking for incriminating evidence? If Kane’s handwriting had been in that diary he’d have started off being as uncooperative as the next man, but unlike the next man he would never have given in, surely? Only a total moron would say, “Oh go on then, anything for a bit of peace”, if he could expect the writing to be whisked straight off to a forensic examiner and matched with a fraudulent document he has forged!

Secondly, this brings us right back to what you conveniently keep forgetting: a criminal investigation was carried out - not something ‘akin’ to one. And no forensic document examiner, asked to carry out a formal handwriting comparison, would have been in a ‘ticklish situation legally’ whatever the outcome. The worst they could suffer would be a public blow to their professional reputation if they concluded a match that was subsequently disproved by other evidence. However striking the detectives involved may have found the resemblance between the diary and Kane’s handwriting, they nevertheless put it down to a ‘strange coincidence’ and the matter was dropped. You could try asking yourself why that would be.

I have heard people in the past suggesting that it wasn’t a case of the police being able to clear anyone of fraud, but that they didn’t have ‘enough evidence’ to bring charges. But this is quite disingenuous if the same people believe the police were sitting there with incriminating handwriting samples that would have linked Kane directly with the diary’s creation (in addition to the tenuous link with Barrett via Devereux’s will), thereby providing them with sufficient suspicion that a crime had indeed been committed - the first vital link in the chain of evidence if a charge of fraud could ever be brought against the publisher.

How do you suppose any forger or fraudster is ever convicted, if the police can’t get an expert in to establish a handwriting match because they all say, “Oooh no sorry, that would put me in a ticklish situation legally”? It’s daft. The police either had Kane’s handwriting formally analysed at the time and no match was found, or they must have had good reasons for not pursuing this line of inquiry. Simple as.



…I have no comment on Keith's provenance. He's been in this business for decades now, and must be painfully aware that he's going to face a tough crowd. The skeptics aren't going to take anything on faith, and will demand to see the evidence. It is my hunch that a new provenance wont' help much. A document that has four published provenances isn't much better than a document that has none, if you know what I mean. The public will still be wondering about those other two or three that they had already been given.

I do have a question for you, Caz, if you don't mind. Was any reason ever given why Mike Barrett was a no-show at the Liverpool 'trial' last summer? His pending attendance was announced with great fanfare, and then he was conspicuous by his absence.

I know exactly what you mean. But where you and I differ is that you seem resigned to the fact - and, if I may say so, rather banking on the fact - that the previous muddying of the waters (by those on both sides of the great divide I might add, and often helped along by the frantic waving of designer flippers) will not only not ‘help’ much, but will lead to a permanent loss to the public of a history they can trust, concerning where the diary undoubtedly was before it first entered Mike Barrett’s consciousness.

I happen to think the public have a duty to themselves to be a very ‘tough crowd’ and not to take their history lessons lying down. But I also think they are entitled to at least one history teacher they can trust, assuming it can be provided for them, regardless of how long it takes, which is why this time round the research into the diary’s history and the resulting documentation had to be as watertight as it could be, in readiness for the most hardened sceptics to renew their mud-throwing and flipper-waving antics. If Keith were the type to be overly concerned with the prospect of facing a tough crowd, I suspect he would not have been in the business for nearly two decades now of investigating this particular document. So your concern need not be for Keith, but for the documented history of the diary, when it finally faces its public.

As for Mike facing his public, I’m not sure what excuses he made, or to whom, for not going to the trial last May. He had expressed the desire and intention to attend and had been warmly encouraged to do so. People were hoping he would give, once and for all, a full and truthful account of what he knows about the diary. I can’t say I was particularly surprised when he failed to show up. Mike is not the most reliable or predictable man I’ve ever met, and he could simply have been ‘unwell’ on the day, in a Jeffrey Bernard sense. But I can think of several reasons why he might have got cold feet and thought better of it after promising - or threatening - to reveal all.



Undoubtedly, there is much information on this 'clique' gathered over the years by UK Diary researchers, but neither the 'pro' nor the 'anti' side has seen fit to make any of it public. They'll all be dead eventually, and that will be the end of it. This opinion probably won't be appreciated, but I suspect if a Maybrick film was ever made, the whole thing would unravel rather soon. Investigative reporters seem to get to the bottom of these things quickly, because mass publicity and t.v. cameras seem to loosen people's lips. One man's opinion. That's it for me.

On the contrary, I very much appreciate your opinion that a Maybrick film would finally succeed in loosening the lips of anyone still living who is ‘in the know’, and I actually share it, although I don’t anticipate ‘the whole thing’ unravelling in quite the same way as you do. Let’s face it, the investigative reporters to date have been so slow at ‘getting to the bottom of these things’, that they make the average tortoise look like an Olympic gold-winning sprinter by comparison. Either that, or they have been sprinting in the wrong direction, looking for the wrong type of ammunition against the wrong ‘clique’. Has it not dawned on you that there may be ‘any number’ of people, alive or dead, who have contributed in one way or another to the Battlecrease documentation? If a Maybrick film is made, these are the skeletons who are likely to rise up like the children of the hydra’s teeth in Jason of the Argonauts, and fight on long after Kane and co have joined Devereux in his eternal rest.

I apologise for the long post, repeating a lot of what has been said in the past. I'll try to be briefer when you have located the Kane k's in the diary for me and I have had the chance to see exactly what you are getting at and to reconsider my own views on the subject.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris G.]

This opinion probably won't be appreciated, but I suspect if a Maybrick film was ever made, the whole thing would unravel rather soon. Investigative reporters seem to get to the bottom of these things quickly, because mass publicity and t.v. cameras seem to loosen people's lips. One man's opinion. That's it for me.

Hi R.J.

You could be correct that a Diary film might loosen tongues, although I somehow don't think so, because multiple books and posts on websites have not brought us any nearer to the truth. I believe that more likely the release of such a film will do no more to reveal the facts than a film, say, like "In Hell" revealed the truth about the Royal conspiracy/masonic theory. Rather, a fictional treatment, which such a film would surely be, with characters probably only partly recognisable as the Maybricks, would be its own animal, and the Diary would be just in the background as one source of whatever is seen on the screen. I doubt if any investigative reporter would have the keen nose to unearth the mechanics of how the Diary came to be, especially since it will be known that investigators and researchers have in the past tried to penetrate what happened and came up empty.

Chris

[Stephen Leece]

"I doubt if any investigative reporter would have the keen nose to unearth the mechanics of how the Diary came to be, especially since it will be known that investigators and researchers have in the past tried to penetrate what happened and came up empty."

Chris, RJ et al.
Or perhaps the assumptions made by certain investigators and researchers just weren't proven?
You're hinting at evidence of deliberate forgery. That's an assumption that has no solid evidence supporting it.
Why are these investigators and researchers coming up 'empty'? Your implication (lacking 'keen nose...') is that they are all incompetent. Where is the indisputable proof that that is the case? How is that position reconciled with the cries of a shabby hoax then? If it was such a shabby hoax it would have been proven to be so even by an investigator who didn't possess a keen nose.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Well a few of us did a double-take in Wolvers, actually, when a ripper case document was put up as part of one of the talks (Sir Robert will know, but I think it may have been a report concerning Eddowes?) and I wondered at first if someone was mucking about and showing us a page from the diary!

I remember that moment quite vividly, Caz. Robert Smith's and my own jaws dropped open. It was a report concerning Eddowes; I believe a coroner's report. Does that sound correct ? I'm sorry I can't find my notes on the subject.

I always worry about "fond memories" these days; I've probably got coroners on the brain since learning about Our Man Fletch . :banghead:

[Paul Butler]

A coroner's report on Eddowes with handwriting very like the diary? The diary with information from the inquest about her little empty tin matchbox that nobody was supposed to know about til 1987? That's got me thinking!

Paul

[SirRobertAnderson]

A coroner's report on Eddowes with handwriting very like the diary? The diary with information from the inquest about her little empty tin matchbox that nobody was supposed to know about til 1987? That's got me thinking!

Paul

Caz and I need to ask Robert Smith's recollection on this. I confess that jet lag and alcohol took their toll on me during the conference.

[How Brown]

Gang:

Where would one find an example of S.F. Langham's handwriting ( He was the city coroner at Kate's Inquest).

And yes,I know that that doesn't mean that he was the one who actually wrote down the words which you are comparing the Diary too....but at least it might be a start,huh?

[John Savage]

Hi Howard,

Upon his retirement Samuel Langham donated his paers to the City of London as that was his district, he was also coroner for Southwark and the papers for that part of his work were donated to the London County Council.

As the City of London has sent a great deal of their archive to LMA that would seem to be the logical place to start. Whilst I was at the LMA I did see a copy of a letter written by his son Frederick and there may have been one from Samuel, Robert or Dave may have a pic, but I am not sure.

Rgds
John

[R.J.Palmer]

The readers can judge this for themselves in any case. What we do state is that it is self-evident from the example on page 232 that the idiosyncratic k is not there.

Hi Caz -- To be specific, what your full quote states is:

"However, it is self-evident from the illustration on page 232 that there is no such idioscyncrasy in the Diary."

(my emphasis)

Obviously, the implication is that the sample on pg. 232 is representative of the diary as a whole, and thus demonstrates that no such 'crooked K' exists in 'the diary' as a whole. So I don't think I am out of line.

At any rate, Melvin Harris responded thus (Ripper Notes, Jan., 2004. p. 45):

"When making checks on Devereux at least three people independently noticed an overall, uncanny resemblace between the handwriting in the Diary and the handwriting of one of Devereux's friends who witnessed his Will. An idiosyncratic feature in the writtten letter 'K' first alerted all three to look closer at the sample and matches were made to many places in the Diary pages. Even so, this Will sample was just a small one and every attempt to secure a larger sample, made prior to 1992, was thwarted. The man refused to cooperate. And his health was so poor that no civilised person would have put him under pressure. So that part of the investigation came to an unsatisfactory halt. But the verdict of the handwriting still stands. Yet Skinner tries to brush the observation aside by printing a photograph of one page of the Diary, which uses the name 'Kelly'
once. And he highlights the letter 'K.' He then asserts, "However, it is self-evident from the illustration on page 232 that there is no such idiosyncrasy in the Diary." But the 'K' he points to is not a joined-up written 'K,' but a printed capital. Yet in the body of the Diary pages are many examples of the odd written formation that first raised eyebrows; there are twenty such examples in the first twenty-one pages alone!"

I am not suggesting any monkey-business. I have no idea why you and your co-authors came to the conclusion that the illustration on p.232 was representative of the Diary. I merely state that after reading Harris's review, I looked at the facsmile of the diary, and felt that Harris had a point.

I no longer have my original post. I can put up some examples when I get the time, but my copy of Harrisons' 1st edition is currently in storage so it might be a few days... if not longer. RP

[R.J.Palmer]

Chris, RJ et al.
Or perhaps the assumptions made by certain investigators and researchers just weren't proven?
You're hinting at evidence of deliberate forgery. That's an assumption that has no solid evidence supporting it.

Hi Stephen. Well, I'd respond by saying that there is evidence to support it. 'Solid' is subjective--which is why this debate has gone on for years. Mike Barrett advertising for a genuine Victorian diary with at least twenty blank pages (in the weeks before showing up in London with the Maybrick Diary) is evidence. Baxendale saying the ink was readily soluable is evidence. The diary using words from a police inventory list of Eddowes' belongings not published until the 1980s is evidence. The fact that Barrett (husband) and Graham (wife) came up with two different provenances for the diary is evidence. Whether this is 'solid' or whether it is 'clutching at straws' depends on who is viewing that evidence. Which is why we go around and around.

Why are these investigators and researchers coming up 'empty'? Your implication (lacking 'keen nose...') is that they are all incompetent. Where is the indisputable proof that that is the case? How is that position reconciled with the cries of a shabby hoax then? If it was such a shabby hoax it would have been proven to be so even by an investigator who didn't possess a keen nose.

Uh, no offense to Chris George, but he said 'coming up empty.' Not me. I think a good amount of useful material was brought forward by the investigators. And nowhere do I say that any of them (pro or con) were incompetent. They were limited to what they could do, because they were reliant on what was in the public domain, or what they could wheedle out of Barrett. It is my understanding that none of the 'anti' side was ever able to speak directly to Anne Graham, for instance. Fido tried and she wouldn't speak to him. So I don't think that any implications can be drawn about them 'coming up empty,' although you see to be implying that we should conclude that no forgers exist (?)

But by all means, come to your own conclusions. I honestly don't wish to push the issue any more, and outside of my pending response to Caz, I don't really have anything new to add. Take care, RP

[Paul]

They were limited to what they could do, because they were reliant on what was in the public domain, or what they could wheedle out of Barrett. It is my understanding that none of the 'anti' side was ever able to speak directly to Anne Graham, for instance. Fido tried and she wouldn't speak to him. So I don't think that any implications can be drawn about them 'coming up empty,' although you see to be implying that we should conclude that no forgers exist (?)

One of the problems was that the anti-camp was openly hostile to Anne Graham and for right or wrong she declined to speak to them, although she attended the conference in Liverpool and I imagine that anyone wanting to speak to her could have done so there. I've spent many a happy hour chatting with Anne over the years and asked various probing questions which I think she always answered promptly and with apparent sncerity, even though she well knew that I thought the diary a fake.

One of the problems for me with the idea that Mike and Anne were responsible for composing the diary is that at no time - except once when guided by the private detective - did Mike ever give a coherent account of the conception and execution of the diary, and there were times when Mike was absolutely desperate to have people believe that he had forged the diary.

[Caroline Morris]

Obviously, the implication is that the sample on pg. 232 is representative of the diary as a whole, and thus demonstrates that no such 'crooked K' exists in 'the diary' as a whole…

…At any rate, Melvin Harris responded thus (Ripper Notes, Jan., 2004. p. 45):

"…An idiosyncratic feature in the writtten letter 'K' first alerted all three to look closer at the sample and matches were made to many places in the Diary pages…

…But the verdict of the handwriting still stands. Yet Skinner tries to brush the observation aside by printing a photograph of one page of the Diary, which uses the name 'Kelly' once…

…But the 'K' he points to is not a joined-up written 'K,' but a printed capital. Yet in the body of the Diary pages are many examples of the odd written formation that first raised eyebrows; there are twenty such examples in the first twenty-one pages alone!"

I am not suggesting any monkey-business. I have no idea why you and your co-authors came to the conclusion that the illustration on p.232 was representative of the Diary. I merely state that after reading Harris's review, I looked at the facsmile of the diary, and felt that Harris had a point.

I no longer have my original post. I can put up some examples when I get the time, but my copy of Harrisons' 1st edition is currently in storage so it might be a few days... if not longer. RP

Hi RJ,

Frankly I’m a bit disappointed that your support for Melvin’s last-ditch attempt to put Kane back in the frame (and your own renewed attempt here, despite the police concluding years ago that he didn't pen the thing) has not yet run to looking up and pointing out a single example that you yourself found in the diary of his distinctive k. I am not particularly amused to have spent time today counting up all the k’s in the first 21 pages of the diary and then starting to look all over again for this elusive little Kane z which forms the bottom right-hand stroke of the letter k in his samples.

In fact I found no fewer than 94 k’s in those first 21 pages, which means that Melvin was clearly unable to find a similarity in at least 74 of those examples - outnumbering the alleged matches he identified by nearly 4 to 1. Forgive me for losing the will to live after examining the first 10 k’s over the first 2 pages and finding no trace of a Kane k.

I now have no idea how you (or Melvin) came to the conclusion that our extract was not representative of the diary, considering the above numbers. If you can spare the time at some point I would be grateful if you could find me just one of Melvin’s 20 examples (presumably between the third and twenty-first page of the diary) which led you to feel he had a point.

I also explained to you previously that it was journalist Stephen Grey’s observation regarding the upper case K of Kane's signature that made it pretty essential to include a corresponding example of a capital K in the diary for direct comparison purposes. No doubt we would have faced equal criticism had we not done so (and it was hardly our fault that the only capital K we found has no z and is not joined up to the e of Kelly, unlike the K and a in Kane).

The fact that there are also 3 lower case k’s in “joined-up” writing in our extract: ‘take’, ‘striking’ and ‘ask’, was a bonus which seems to have eluded Melvin entirely. The Kane samples we managed to acquire show 3 examples of ‘Kane’, one of ‘Maker’ (as in Cabinet Maker) and one of ‘sick’ (as in ‘I am sick to death of you people’ - I'm beginning to know the feeling ;)). So you surely don’t need Melvin to help you decide whether our extract was a fair or foul one to use.



It is my understanding that none of the 'anti' side was ever able to speak directly to Anne Graham, for instance. Fido tried and she wouldn't speak to him. So I don't think that any implications can be drawn about them 'coming up empty,' although you see to be implying that we should conclude that no forgers exist (?)



How did this ‘understanding’ come about, that none of the ‘anti’ side was ever able to speak directly to Anne? If you are correct about Martin Fido trying to speak to her on one occasion and being refused, he nevertheless conducted interviews with her on at least two others (see page 195 of Ripper Diary for more details).

Have you any evidence at all of any other ‘antis’ expressing a wish to speak directly to Anne, or asking to do so and being turned down? Nick Warren? Melvin? Stewart Evans? Phil Sugden? Richard Whittington-Egan? Anyone? I seem to recall Melvin on the Casebook message boards excusing his lack of enthusiasm for face-to-face interviews with those he suspected of involvement by posting that it was a bad idea to get that close because it tended to cloud one’s judgement. :banghead: I don’t know how he reconciled such a view with routine but vital police procedure but there we are.

Anne attended a meeting of the old Cloak & Dagger club (before my time), during which Feldy invited her onto the stage to tell her story. Do you know if she was asked any questions by the ‘anti’ side when they were presented with the opportunity?

Anne was also at the filming of the Trial of Jack the Ripper, shown on the Discovery Channel in February 2002, so anyone from the 'anti' side who went along had the chance to tackle her in the green room, as I did myself. I’m sure someone pointed out Nick Warren to me, and I know Stewart was there because I remember him excitedly showing me the photos taken of him with Johnny Depp. :) But I don’t know if either spoke to Anne.

Finally, as Paul says, Anne turned up at the Liverpool Conference in 2003. So you should be able to support your 'understanding' with plenty of evidence of all the ‘antis’ in attendance trying to speak directly to her at one or other of these functions and being rebuffed.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Is there much point in you continuing to conclude that a modern forger or forgers must exist, despite the total inability of anyone to flush them out, when one of the most respected researchers in the business knows that the Battlecrease documentation most definitely exists?

[Chris G.]

Finally, as Paul says, Anne turned up at the Liverpool Conference in 2003. So you should be able to support your 'understanding' with plenty of evidence of all the ‘antis’ in attendance trying to speak directly to her at one or other of these functions and being rebuffed.


Just as a matter of record I saw Anne Graham at the Liverpool Conference at the Britannia Adelphi Hotel in August 2003 but, because I have mixed feelings about her role in the Diary affair, I did not seek to talk to her. Actually I didn't think there would be much use talking to her because I was unsure if I would get a straight or useful answer.

Chris

[Stephen Leece]

RJ- I said hi in my intro to my previous post because you were an active member of the discussion- I wasn't attributing Chris' thoughts to you, apologies if it seemed that way.
I'll be more specific on where I'm coming from: I get irritated when I see on something like Wikipedia, to name one example, and it refers to the 'hoaxed' Jack the Ripper diary. The thing hasn't even be adequately dated, let alone identified who other than James could have wrote it; so automatically you're two steps away from making a statement about forgery/ hoax and being on solid ground. What I am saying is, one should be slightly more careful in the language they employ when discussing the diary.
Or put it another way: there was a police investigation into allegations of a forgery, that came up with nothing. Our own friends on here, have looked into allegations of a forgery, and come up with nothing. There is nothing to indicate a forgery that would stand up in court- so smear and innuendo against Graham and/ or Barrett, or anyone else, does not help the case- it makes the objective reader more suspicious. If there is concrete evidence of a forgery, fine- present it.
At times the diary discussion reads more like the paranoid musings of a Roswell cover-up nutcase, and, I'm sorry to say, it's those that are critical of the diary that make it seem that way.

[Paul Butler]

Morning Stephen and all.

I noticed several times that attempts have been made to edit the Wikipedia entry on Maybrick to present a more balanced viewpoint, and to correct its numerous and serious factual errors, but if you look at the editing history it seems that these revisions never last for more than a day at the most! Somebody must have an alarm set up to notify them of any changes, which they promptly reverse.

I wonder who that might be ???!!! :tape: Whoever it is, seems desperate to preserve a fiction!

RJ originally took me to task for suggesting that Melvin Harris seemed to have little faith in his own allegations made against the diary. I still firmly hold to that view, although a lot of water has gone under the bridge since Harris made his observations, and a good deal of it is hardly relevant any more. His objectivity must be brought into question in any case, as much of it comes accross as having been fueled by animosity between him and Feldman.

To cling onto Harris's old hat theories now really does seem like an act of desperation to me, and I really don't see the point.

I hate talk of pro-diary and anti-diary anyway, but the "anti" argument foundered seriously when Harris's "nest" failed to materialise, and has never really recovered. There is no need for the "smear and innuendo" if one has a good case to put forward for the diary being proven modern. The trouble is there isn't one, or if there is I haven't seen it yet.

regards.

Paul

[Stephen Leece]

It is largely Dr. Nickell's Wikipedia entry that irritated me partly because he was part of the Warner Books investigation team, and I've always felt that they were misled or misinformed, and partly because I'm a great admirer of his other work on paranormal/ pseudo-science claims. So I do have an axe to grind on this particular point. Typically of Wikipedia there is few relevant footnotes, and there isn't even a footnote for his work on the diary. It leaves me with the impression that someone is trying to sell me a package on blind faith alone.

[Paul Butler]

Hi Stephen.

Well I think the idea is that if you say something often enough then it must be true. The problem is that repeating "The diary is a modern hoax" as if it were a proven fact over and over for years simply hasn't worked.

The wikipedia entry for James Maybrick says..."The circumstances of Maybrick's death were deemed suspicious, and examination of the body indicated an arsenic overdose as the cause of death."

No it didn't!

No cause of death was ever established at the inquest or even at the murder trial. In fact quite the contrary was found to be the case, with Arsenic found in such minute quantities in James' body as to make it impossible for an overdose to have been the cause of his death.

The author of that article then expects us to swallow complete tripe like..."Also cited are tests conducted on the diary's ink, suggesting the diary was written recently, and in only a few sittings, not over the several months indicated in the diary's entries.", and....." general consensus is that the watch, though certainly antique, was enhanced by a modern forger adding the initials."

Who is this mythical consensus then?

If the "anti-diary" (I do hate that expression), point of view has to be so loaded to make any effect, then it ain't worth the paper, (or web space), that its written on.

regards.

Paul

[Stephen Leece]

Damn right Paul!
Anyway I'm off to carry on the erm Spirit of Nickell's other work and give a lecture on why tarot cards and ouija boards are a load of old horsesh*t.

Have a good day everyone!

[Kim Ross]

Hi Stephen.

I read your post. 'There was a police inquiry into allegations of forgery (about the Diary) that came up with nothing.'

Can you please be more specific.

Cheers

Kim

[Stephen Leece]

Hi Kim- I'm reluctant to go into detail on that one because it was about 14 years ago and memories of the events are hazy- if you PM Caroline Morris she can give you the specific details- the short answer is a ripperologist was convinced that the diary was forged, and it was published with knowledge of this forgery in mind. I think it was to do with the sale of serialisation rights. So the police investigation centred on whether the publishing company was aware of it being a forgery or not. Like I said, forgery hasn't even been proven by that point so how one can knowingly make a profit from a duff document in that instance baffles me. But you can get the specifics off of Caroline though- I don't want to unjustly accuse people or spread misinformation- there's enough of that doing the rounds as it is without me adding to it.

[Caroline Morris]

Just as a matter of record I saw Anne Graham at the Liverpool Conference at the Britannia Adelphi Hotel in August 2003 but, because I have mixed feelings about her role in the Diary affair, I did not seek to talk to her. Actually I didn't think there would be much use talking to her because I was unsure if I would get a straight or useful answer.

Chris

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for this. I’m sure you are not alone in choosing not to speak directly to Anne. I know from Melvin’s old posts that he shared your doubts about the value of questioning Anne at all, since changing her story had made her an unreliable witness.

Of course, RJ’s understanding, that none of the ‘anti’ side was ever able to speak to Anne directly, is no big deal if few ever sought to do so, and no deal at all if one or more of them succeeded. But the implication was that many people from the ‘anti’ side had been eager to talk to Anne and they had all been turned away without exception. It would not have been worth mentioning otherwise.

So while I remain curious to know what - or who - led RJ to think this was the case, it’s not going to lead us anywhere, and if he fails to come back with anything I won’t push it. I just hope that if he drops this one without further comment, he will at least make a mental note of the various responses, and not make the same observation at some future date as if it had not already been made and challenged.

Hi Paul, Stephen,

I wouldn’t worry too much about Wikipedia. It’s not exactly a source that the discerning reader who requires their information to be accurate and provided by experts should be relying on anyway. :)

In fact, if you can't take any Wikipedia info as gospel, it would be better for modern hoax theorists in the long run if they let the saddest, most vehement pro-diarist loose on it. What’s the point of the saddest, most vehement anti-diarist constantly monitoring the info and producing revised versions that can't be taken any more seriously than the versions they replace? :confused:

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

RJ responded to me privately and has given me permission to post his message in full.

So here it is, followed by my response to him:

Hi Caz - So while I remain curious to know what - or who - led RJ to think this was the case, it’s not going to lead us anywhere

I agree that it isn't going to lead us anywhere, but for the sake of the curious, I was left with this impression by a number of sources.

1. Martin Fido's unsuccessful attempt at questioning AG, as described by Fido himself. I believe a slamming bathroom door was involved.

2. The incident at Casebook.org some years back, when AG was invited to answer some harmless questions and responded through Keith Skinner's answering machine something to the effect that Ripperologists could 'jump in a lake.' (I quote from memory, it had a harsher, Liverpudlian feel to it, the word 'sod' comes to mind). I know of no other document or artifact where the owner (or former owner) wasn't happy to talk about it. Read: rotten, Denmark.

3. Slamming the door in the face of Brough, or one of Brough's reporters, circa 1995.

4. Her lack of common courtesy in not revealing her provenance story to either Harrison or Montgomery until well after the book was published---and even then only through a James Bond/007 tape message via Feldman after (literally) a walk down the garden path. No, not really evidence that she wasn't approachable, but certainly evidence she wasn't eager to cooperate.

5. The quote in your own book that she never intends to speak of the Diary again. See commentary under #2. There's no reason for this sort of melodrama.

But, I confess, I'm confused. According to the way I'm hearing it described, this new 'Battlecrease' provenance leaves AG high and dry. So you don't believe her anymore than I do. Thus, I don't see the point in arguing how accessible she is...or was...

So, comment withdrawn. She's been the epitome of openness and cooperation. It's just that no one believes her.

All the best. RP

Hi RJ,

Much of this is perfectly fair comment, but I did not suggest Anne was the 'epitome of openness and cooperation' or that anyone should have believed her on the occasions when she did cooperate. YOU were the one who brought up her accessibility to the 'anti' side and put it at zero, as if this would have had some deep significance if true.

I agree that it makes little difference whether Anne spoke to people reluctantly or not at all. She changed her story - end of story. I was not questioning your 'understanding' from some misplaced desire to defend Anne's behaviour. You might argue that it hardly matters what you write about someone whose word cannot be relied on. But it matters if you seek to make a stronger public case for your own beliefs by writing something that goes against the historical record.

Once again you appeared to be over-egging the modern hoax pudding (as in the case of the elusive Kane k - so elusive you have not yet been able to identify a single example that you found for yourself in the diary*), which you wouldn't need to do if the pudding cooked itself. Does Anne's reluctance to cooperate - on any level - imply her involvement in a modern hoax, or her knowledge of one? Not by itself it can't, even without the spectre of the Battlecrease documentation. She could have refused to say a word to anyone at all, or happily told one contradictory tale after another to anyone who would listen, and you'd still be none the wiser about how much she really knows. But you will never be short of 'supporting' evidence if you are programmed to see the Barretts' behaviour as confirmation of your belief in a modern hoax.

Do you mind if I post that you have withdrawn the comment? Or are you planning to do so yourself? It's not quite the same thing withdrawing it privately, is it?

All the best to you too, RJ

Caz
X

* RJ has assured me he will remedy this in due course.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Afternoon Caz.

In a very few weeks time it will be the anniversary of Keith's "Battlecrease revelation" and I think we've all been very patient and well behaved around here up until now, while we wait. :eyebrows:

I don't suppose there's any news as to when we might get to see it too? Although I for one am happy to take it as read until we do hear the whole evidence, I'm also quite looking forward to being proved right!....:faint:

Reading between the lines in your recent posts on the subject, it seems to me that Keith's new evidence at least allows for the diary to have been created during or soon after the real James' time. Is that a reasonable asumption to make, or am I reading a bit to much into it? I'm not angling, honest, but just trying to get things straight in my own mind!

On the subject of Anne Graham's story, (and Billy's), is it your view that their tale and the new provenance are mutually exclusive? If the Graham's are to be believed, then the diary has a provenance back to WW2 when Granny Formby left it to Billy. Do you think that when we get to see the new evidence it will prove Anne to have been fibbing to Feldman a dozen or so years ago?

I realise that you are quite possibly just as clueless as the rest of us on some of these points, (I mean that in a nice way :kiss:), but if you don't ask you don't get!

Regards.

Paul

[Caroline Morris]

I'm so sorry, Paul - on two counts.

Firstly, I'm sorry it has taken me this long to get back to the Maybrick threads and read the posts made since my last visit. (I'm really behind over at the Casebook too!) So I've only just read yours here. Totally down to me, that one.

Secondly, I'm sorry but I can't comment on the nature of the Battlecrease evidence, or what implications it has for the Barretts' various accounts. And sadly that's not down to me at all. :tape:

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Afternoon Caz.

No need to apologise. I really didn't expect you would or could say any more than you already have, but if you don't ask you don't get, (and I still didn't get much in any case did I?)
Like I said, I will be quite pleased to be proved right in due course, just as long as its in my lifetime! :crutch:

I haven't really changed my mind about when I think the diary was created, and why, for years now. Nothing I've seen has changed that, and the "Battlecrease" provenance has just reinforced it.

I suppose we shall all have to sit tight awhile longer. It's fun to have something different to speculate about in the meantime though isn't it?!!:gossip:

Regards.

Paul