Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Rippercast: Rippercast Episode 60- Current Events and the Conference in Salisbury - by Ally 2 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence - by Abby Normal 4 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Robert Paul, Jack the Ripper? - by Simon Wood 5 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Jack the Ripper consequences. - by SirJohnFalstaff 7 minutes ago.
Visual Media: The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary - by Rob Clack 10 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Auction of PC Watkin's Ripper Items - by lynn cates 12 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Visual Media: The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary - (47 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Robert Paul, Jack the Ripper? - (47 posts)
General Discussion: Auction of PC Watkin's Ripper Items - (12 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Sent to an asylum? - (10 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Lets get Lechmere off the hook! - (8 posts)
General Victim Discussion: Who was Jack's first murder poll! - (8 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 19, 2014, 12:02 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm
Donald Swanson
Edit: Chris
Dec 9, 2012, 3:40 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.
Mike Covell: A Study in Red – The Secret Journal of Jack the Ripper
March 3, 2014, 3:42 am.
Mike Covell: Almost there….
January 24, 2014, 4:05 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper - Year in Review 2013
December 28, 2013, 7:31 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper At Last? - Review
December 9, 2013, 2:08 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-02-2012, 07:00 PM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan H View Post
With such a source the provenance must be uncluttered by false trails, confessions of deceit, fortuitous supporting artifacts and admissions.

On that basis the Dairy is clearly, glaringly a modern fake, and yet the hoaxer(s) are to be congratulated for first working out how to get around the forensic examinations (the debacle of the Hitler Diaries could have been their anti-Template).

If you had the powers of the police, you could check out who checked out books on the Maybrick trial in the years before the Diary surfaced. This was how American law-enforcers exposed Melvin Dummar's Howard Hughes hoax will in 1976, as his fingerprint was found on a book about an Hughes hoax.
The thing is, Jonathan (and it's diary, not dairy), what kind of 'uncluttered' provenance would you be looking for in order to support the scientists' view that it was written 'prior to 1970'? What clear provenance would you expect to be available for a document of this nature in the best case scenario?

It's hardly going to be listed in a catalogue, is it? Or on anyone's list of personal effects: "One Confession to the Whitechapel Murders, by James Maybrick, but in A.N.Other's Handwriting". It's not something that anyone should knowingly have had lying around the house, is it?

Yes, the issue of provenance has always been one of the biggest sticks to bash the diary with while intoning "glaringly modern"; but then it would be, wouldn't it? Think of the perfect provenance for an item like this and then use your highly tuned imagination to work out why it would not have come equipped with it to the public stage.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 04-02-2012 at 07:03 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-03-2012, 12:29 AM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Except that the joke seems to have been on the Barretts - the only two who would be directly implicated in a modern fake, and haven't they done well out of it - not!

Love,

Caz
X
Hello Caz,

In fairness, my post was a generalisation, tongue in cheek and I used the word 'perhaps' re money. Apart from that you are bang on in all you say. If anyone made money out of it, it wasnt the Barretts.

Best wishes

Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC - original since 1905
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-03-2012, 12:37 AM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 1,989
Default

To Caz

Yes, I've seen this before with your strange posts.

The Dodgy Diary is somehow your personal crusade, and so you react to anybody who questions its authenticity as if it is a personal attack on you?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-04-2012, 05:38 PM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3,849
Default

Now that is what I would call a very strange post, Jonathan.

If I 'reacted' to everyone who questions the diary's authenticity I wouldn't have time to fart.

Besides, what didn't you understand about: 'in A.N.Other's Handwriting' that makes you conclude that I don't question its authenticity?

I had better 'react' as if I have just personally attacked myself in that case, for saying that Maybrick didn't write it.

Lighten up Jonathan, at least neither of us is pushing a crackpot ripper theory of our own. You continue to push for Mac 'knowing' that Druitt dunnit, and I'll continue to challenge any unsupported gut feelings for the diary being a modern (as opposed to a pre-1970) hoax.

Is that fair enough?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 04-04-2012 at 05:41 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-05-2012, 12:38 AM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 1,989
Default

So you think the Diary is a Victorian or Edwardian fake, have I got that right?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-19-2012, 02:15 PM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3,849
Default

Hi Jonathan,

I think it was penned prior to 1970 by someone who, for whatever reason, was unwilling or unable to make the handwriting look like James Maybrick's.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-19-2012, 03:11 PM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 1,989
Default

I see, thanks.

The reason I think it is a modern fake is partly textual.

I was persuaded by this Melvin Harris article, having already felt that the provenance was too dubious.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...ary/mb-mc.html

That the Diary's 'DNA' is contaminated by material invented by McCormick, but thought to be authentic by the unwary reader -- or hoaxer.

McCormick had also provided the demonstrably false tale about Dutton-Backert, which was the 'clincher' bridging source between the 1889 obits and the 1894 Mac Report(s) confirming Druitt as a contemporaneous suspect during the 1888-9 investigation.

Cullen and Farson both bought this, side-lining Macnaghten's memoirs which conceded Druitt was a posthumous suspect, and thus did enormous long-term damage to untangling the knot involving Jack the Ripper's true identity, historically speaking.

This provided the vacuum which was filled by the Royal hoax, and then, much more plausibly, by the local poor, madman (Cohen, Aaron Kosminski) then the Maybrick Hoax, and then much more plausibly Dr. Tumblety was rediscovered, and then this was followed by the [sincere] Cornwall nonsense about Sickert.

Yet culturally, Maybrick and Sickert did represent an orbiting back to the mythos of the Ripper as English gentleman (of sorts).
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-19-2012, 03:35 PM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan H View Post
I see, thanks.

The reason I think it is a modern fake is partly textual.

I was persuaded by this Melvin Harris article, having already felt that the provenance was too dubious.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...ary/mb-mc.html

That the Diary's 'DNA' is contaminated by material invented by McCormick, but thought to be authentic by the unwary reader -- or hoaxer.

McCormick had also provided the demonstrably false tale about Dutton-Backert, which was the 'clincher' bridging source between the 1889 obits and the 1894 Mac Report(s) confirming Druitt as a contemporaneous suspect during the 1888-9 investigation.

Cullen and Farson both bought this, side-lining Macnaghten's memoirs which conceded Druitt was a posthumous suspect, and thus did enormous long-term damage to untangling the knot involving Jack the Ripper's true identity, historically speaking.

This provided the vacuum which was filled by the Royal hoax, and then, much more plausibly, by the local poor, madman (Cohen, Aaron Kosminski) then the Maybrick Hoax, and then much more plausibly Dr. Tumblety was rediscovered, and then this was followed by the [sincere] Cornwall nonsense about Sickert.

Yet culturally, Maybrick and Sickert did represent an orbiting back to the mythos of the Ripper as English gentleman (of sorts).
Hi Jonathan,
McCormick wrote pre-1970, in 1959/1962 in fact, so any McCormick contamination doesn't influence Caz's statement that she believes the diary was composed pre-1970 and why she challenges arguments that the diary is "obviously modern" (meaning a post-centenary invention, or post-1990 creation by Mike Barrett). And if Mike Barrett is taken out of the frame, an early date for the composition of the diary, despite the internal problems such an idea presents, becomes a reasonable postulate. What Caz is fighting against is a rather glib dismissal of the diary as "obviously modern" and by implication the creation of Mike Barrett when this is not altogether supported.
Paul
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-19-2012, 04:01 PM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 1,989
Default

Yes, I see your point - a hoax created before 1970 by people who did not realise they were being hoaxed by McCormick. Poetic justice.

Of course that it surfaced when it did, with people telling different stories and so on, would suggest that it is a more recent hoax than 1970.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-19-2012, 04:22 PM
ChrisGeorge ChrisGeorge is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,085
Default

Hi Jonathan and Paul

Perhaps one of you could point out to me where in the Maybrick Diary there is material that appears to come from McCormick. I read Harris's dissertation some time ago. As far as I know he was just making a comparison with McCormick's fabrications, and was also using the Diary as a way to show he had exposed McCormick's falsehoods.

Best regards

Chris
__________________
Christopher T. George
Editor-at-Large, Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.biz
http://blog.casebook.org/chrisgeorge
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com

Last edited by ChrisGeorge : 04-19-2012 at 04:37 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.