Tweet
-
-
I see that the Feb 2021 issue has been distributed. The folks at the society have held their own very well during this pandemic. It is so easy to get sidetracked with the problems that this virus brings on everyday life, but this journal still doesn't skip a beat. Congratulations to Sue, George, Neil, and all the people who put out this journal.
It looks like Chris Jones has the top billing this time. Cool. I've always known him to be a solid researcher and presenter. I will read his article tonight. The last time I saw him, we were having lunch at the Rusty Scupper restaurant in Baltimore with Chris George a few years back. -
I finished reading it all. It was a very good issue. Gary's article on Nichols' former employer was quite informative. And as expected, Chris Jones, put a lot of research into his Maybrick article.
Paul Kenny and Louisa Grace were straight forward with their assessments. I totally agree with Louisa's remark about how the Ripper Walks are definitely not set up for the purpose of commercializing violence against women.
This issue was a job well done by all the writers. I'm happy that the journal comes in electronic form at such a reasonable price.Comment
-
Joe:
Thanks for the commentary.
To me, claiming that the Ripper Walks knowingly promote misogyny or glamorize the Ripper is like saying the folks who operate the Lizzie Borden Tour ( indoor) glamorize patricide and matricide.Comment
-
Thanks, Joe.
Just for the record, the Cowdry info was unearthed on this Forums thread:
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/vict...-samuel-cowdry
It was very much a team effort, to which our old friend Robert contributed (no surprise there).
Francis Cowdry’s post-Polly story is real ‘Ripping Yarns’ stuff. A ‘Polly’s Mr Cowdry 2.’ may be called for.Comment
-
For many years, Robert indeed shared his helping hand with authors of Ripper magazine articles. In published books too, you'll find his name being acknowledged by writers.
I'm sure the WSJ would appreciate a sequel to the Cowdy story if it comes about.
Howard, the Lizzie Borden example is a good one. We can probably go on and on from there. I don't think the tour of the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam glorifies antisemitism. The Battle of Hastings tour in England doesn't promote warfare. But some people don't want the Whitechapel walking tours to be looked upon in this same manner.Comment
-
Morning All,
While I have a lot of time for Chris Jones and anything he writes, and am more than prepared to consider the diary to be, as he argues, a 'modern construct', I do wonder about some of the examples he uses to support his case. How about this one - anyone?
Diary reference: 'My medicine will give me strength and the thought of the whore and her whoring master will spur me on no end.'
Extract from Bernard Ryan's 1977 book: [James Maybrick, talking to Master Mariner John Fleming]: "I take this arsenic once in a while because I find it strengthens me."
Assuming Maybrick did say something of the sort to John Fleming, I have to wonder whose 'voice' Chris would have considered more credible to find in the diary?
Another example is even more problematic:
Diary reference: 'Fuller believes there is very little the matter with me.'
Extract from Ryan: 'At last, he [Fuller] told his patient [James] that he could find very little the matter with him.'
At first glance, this looks like the hoaxer copied verbatim from Ryan's book. Case closed. But is it? If we dig just a little bit deeper, we find that Ryan is not quoting Dr Fuller directly, so the hoaxer would be left to guess how the doctor himself worded this in 1889, when basically telling Maybrick to buck up. What the hoaxer couldn't know, just from reading Ryan, was precisely how the primary source, Dr Fuller, expressed himself to his patient in 1889, as he testified at Florie's trial later that year:
Dr Fuller in 1889: "I found there was nothing the matter with him. I told him there was very little the matter with him..."
Could the hoaxer have expected to home in by pure chance on a direct five-word quote from the good doctor himself, simply from Ryan's paraphrasing? I would say not in a month of wet Sundays. The diary author had to know what Fuller's actual words were at the trial, in order to use them in the diary.
This doesn't make the diary old, let alone real. It merely shows me that in this instance at least, Ryan's book alone could not have come up with the goods.
Love,
Caz
X
I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm PetersenComment
-
Hi Caz.
Aren't you giving the hoaxer far too much credit?
Even though the two passages are almost identical, you seem to be arguing that the hoaxer couldn't be cribbing from Ryan, out of fear that Ryan was simply making up the quote, rather than accurately quoting Fuller. That's splitting hairs so thin that they are at risk of blowing away at the slightest breeze.
This is the same hoaxer who didn't think twice about making up an imaginary strangulation murder in Manchester, or using handwriting that in no way resembles Maybrick's.
He's not going to worry about such subtle delicacies.
Anyway, most people are going to take it on faith that when a historian writes "X told Y about Z," that he had a primary source in mind. Ryan was writing straight history, not historical fiction. Further, the hoaxer just wants a payday; he's not looking to win the Wolfson History Prize.
But I gather that Chris Jones, the author of the Maybrick A-Z, has now made a textual study and has concluded that the hoaxer used Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick.
I've been saying the same thing on Stephen Ryder's site for at least 18 years.
And David Barrat came to the same conclusion and wrote about it with considerably more detail, available here:
Diary Deep Dive - Orsam Books
I'm not complaining; in fact, I'm delighted. We now we have 3 people making independent studies of the text, and all drawing the same conclusion.
I do wonder, though, if Chris Jones was aware that Mike Barrett named this very book as one of his sources?
Anyway, here's what I came to say:
Keith Skinner has argued that if Ryan could have come up with his material using contemporary 19th Century sources, then the 'old hoaxer' could have as well.
Technically true, but this misses the point and pushes credibility far beyond the breaking point. The overlap of knowledge and ignorance between Ryan and the hoaxer is too perfect.
Everything the hoaxer knows about Maybrick's private life, can be found in Ryan. And what Ryan doesn't report, the hoaxer shows complete ignorance of.
No person who has truly thought long and hard about it is going to accept that two people could independently use the same vast trove of primary sources, and report back the same identical 50 or so facts.
In this respect, David Barrat's list of events in Maybrick's life, 1888-1889, that the Diarist makes no mention of, is very damning indeed.
If the hoaxer truly had an intimate knowledge of Maybrick's life, then why doesn't he mention a single verifiable fact not mentioned by Ryan? The trip to Wales? The portrait that Maybrick was sitting for? etc.
It's not like Ryan was compiling an intimate and comprehensive account of Maybrick's day-to-day life; he was only repeating the standard bits that were relevant to Florrie's prosecution.
This should be the end of the road, but there have been many ends of the road, and I doubt Chris Jones will be any more successful at convincing the stragglers than any one else.
Once a hoax has become this widely broadcast, it lingers for decades no matter how many times someone gives it a thrashing.
Comment
-
'Out of fear that Ryan was simply making up the quote'?? Ryan wasn't quoting at all, he was paraphrasing throughout, from the reader's point of view. And your hoaxer managed to pick up on the only five words which corresponded exactly and consecutively with the words used by Fuller himself. There is no way on God's earth for a hoaxer to know that, purely from reading the relevant passages in Ryan's book. The hoaxer needed an earlier source to know how Fuller himself had actually expressed himself in 1889. Ryan simply doesn't provide that vital information. How can this be so very hard for you or Chris Jones to grasp?
'Subtle delicacies'? You're still a million miles away from the point. Your thick as mince hoaxer, who made a small fortune out of a diary in his wife's handwriting, with an added Manchester twist, was supposedly able to distinguish Fuller's own words from Ryan's paraphrasing, by some feat of literary osmosis. A neat trick, which I would love to see some of the clever clog Barrett hoax believers pull off sometime - never.This is the same hoaxer who didn't think twice about making up an imaginary strangulation murder in Manchester, or using handwriting that in no way resembles Maybrick's.
He's not going to worry about such subtle delicacies.
And that's the other problem, because Ryan was writing straight history, not historical fiction, so his facts and primary sources on the Maybricks were bound to correspond to a greater or lesser degree with anyone else's - including the hoaxer's - whenever you have the latter putting Diamine to photo album.Anyway, most people are going to take it on faith that when a historian writes "X told Y about Z," that he had a primary source in mind. Ryan was writing straight history, not historical fiction. Further, the hoaxer just wants a payday; he's not looking to win the Wolfson History Prize.
Well that was also my point. I just hope the examples Chris chose for his WS mag article were among his weakest, and he's keeping back something 100% conclusive for another place and time. How about a provable invention by Ryan, which made its way word-for-word into the diary? That would do it. Anything less is more piss and wind than proof that a Barrett consulted Ryan, and later just happened to call a London literary agent about Jack's diary on the same day that some bloke who used the same pub had been working in James Maybrick's old bedroom. That's even less likely than anyone identifying a five-word primary source quote from what Ryan wrote.But I gather that Chris Jones, the author of the Maybrick A-Z, has now made a textual study and has concluded that the hoaxer used Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick.
I've been saying the same thing on Stephen Ryder's site for at least 18 years.
Ah, so three armchair theorists can't be wrong? Interesting.And David Barrat came to the same conclusion and wrote about it with considerably more detail, available here:
Diary Deep Dive - Orsam Books
I'm not complaining; in fact, I'm delighted. We now we have 3 people making independent studies of the text, and all drawing the same conclusion.
Not in his famous research notes, he didn't. By the time he was naming Ryan, he had already been told about this useful source by Shirley, and he said he'd never heard of it. Inadmissible as evidence, surely, since Shirley had given him the heads up. It's all about cause and effect, but you have to get the order of events right first.I do wonder, though, if Chris Jones was aware that Mike Barrett named this very book as one of his sources?
Nobody is arguing here that the hoaxer 'truly had an intimate knowledge of Maybrick's life', so that's a red herring.Anyway, here's what I came to say:
Keith Skinner has argued that if Ryan could have come up with his material using contemporary 19th Century sources, then the 'old hoaxer' could have as well.
Technically true, but this misses the point and pushes credibility far beyond the breaking point. The overlap of knowledge and ignorance between Ryan and the hoaxer is too perfect.
Everything the hoaxer knows about Maybrick's private life, can be found in Ryan. And what Ryan doesn't report, the hoaxer shows complete ignorance of.
No person who has truly thought long and hard about it is going to accept that two people could independently use the same vast trove of primary sources, and report back the same identical 50 or so facts.
In this respect, David Barrat's list of events in Maybrick's life, 1888-1889, that the Diarist makes no mention of, is very damning indeed.
If the hoaxer truly had an intimate knowledge of Maybrick's life, then why doesn't he mention a single verifiable fact not mentioned by Ryan? The trip to Wales? The portrait that Maybrick was sitting for? etc.
It's not like Ryan was compiling an intimate and comprehensive account of Maybrick's day-to-day life; he was only repeating the standard bits that were relevant to Florrie's prosecution.
This should be the end of the road, but there have been many ends of the road, and I doubt Chris Jones will be any more successful at convincing the stragglers than any one else.
Once a hoax has become this widely broadcast, it lingers for decades no matter how many times someone gives it a thrashing.
And standing in the way of the very best argument for Ryan's book having directly influenced a Barrett to create the diary's text on the old "word prosser" [sic] between 1990 and 1992, is the actual, fully documented double event of 9th March 1992. This will linger for much longer, no matter how hard the David Barrats of this world try to swat it away with lazy explanations.I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm PetersenComment
-
Poor Chris Jones. It didn't take long for him to go from a guy that one 'always has time for' to just another 'armchair theorist.'
He conducted a textual analysis. Where was he supposed to conduct it, in a hammock?
It was a stupid point, Caz. Becoming abusive doesn't make it any smarter. Barrett used the exact wording as Ryan, but he couldn't have been quoting Ryan, because...because...because!
One eventually realizes that the best strategy for dealing with those who believe the Maybrick Diary is something other than a shoddy modern hoax is to simply pull the blinds down when one sees them coming up the sidewalk.
Comment
Comment