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:
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - by j.r-ahde 14 minutes ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by rjpalmer 3 hours ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by Paddy 5 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Michael W Richards 6 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - by Abby Normal 6 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - by curious 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (16 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (6 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (5 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (4 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - (3 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 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

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
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.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1421  
Old 09-20-2017, 09:20 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

What I'd like to ask supporters of an older hoax is this, who do you suppose wrote the diary?

Who could it possibly be that had "intimate knowledge" of the case and of Maybrick?

A servant? Is that likely?

Michael Maybrick? He'd surely have the writing skills needed to come up with a piece of fact-laced fiction, but why would he go to any trouble to make lies up about James after his death? Lies which would surely damage Micgael and his reputation, and sully his family name?

So who else? Florence's lover, in an attempt to make Florence's crime seem justified?

Fletcher Rogers, friend of James, who stood at the trial of Florence and immediately took up residence at Battlecrease?

At least with a modern forgery, we have ideas of who may have written it or thought it up.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1422  
Old 09-20-2017, 09:45 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
At least with a modern forgery, we have ideas of who may have written it or thought it up.
And the potential inspiration to think it up in the first place, namely: the publicity around the Yorkshire Ripper case in the 1970s, with the Wearside Jack hoax thrown in for good measure; the Hitler Diaries affair of the early 1980s; and the JTR centenary - complete with books, movies and documentaries - in the late 1980s. There would also, presumably, have been the added local impetus of the centenary of the Maybrick case at about the same time. By the early 1990s, it seems that all the required ingredients were there.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1423  
Old 09-20-2017, 10:30 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
And the potential inspiration to think it up in the first place, namely: the publicity around the Yorkshire Ripper case in the 1970s, with the Wearside Jack hoax thrown in for good measure; the Hitler Diaries affair of the early 1980s; and the JTR centenary - complete with books, movies and documentaries - in the late 1980s. There would also, presumably, have been the added local impetus of the centenary of the Maybrick case at about the same time. By the early 1990s, it seems that all the required ingredients were there.
I agree, Sam. There's also the fact that the Maybrick story had been rekindled locally during the late 80's/early 90's with the republishing of Whittington-Egan's work, with some of the chapters being circulated in weekly editions of local newspapers such as the Merseymart.

If we're going with an older hoax, we have to have some kind of idea of who wrote it, and for what reason. So far, I've seen no decent answers for those questions.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1424  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:35 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,073
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
There are valid reasons to believe this is a more modern hoax, but as yet, I'm scratching my head looking for a similar number of valid reasons to either suggest an older hoax or the real deal.

There's that tumbleweed again!
Just out of interest Mike, what would you consider 'a valid reason?' Whatever doubts everyone has about the 'timeline' or anything else it's still 'proven' that electricians were working in Maybrick's room on the day Mike Barrett phoned about the diary. It's transparently not impossible that the diary 'could' have got to Barrett on that day. And the scientific tests all appear to favour an older date for the diary. Again Mr Devil's advocate here

By the way chaps I'm in London at the moment. Just been on a 'ripper' walk. They don't even bother going to Goulston Street anymore and Mitre Square is almost unrecognisable! The cobbles are gone and there's bloody grass in the middle!!
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1425  
Old 09-20-2017, 03:09 PM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Just out of interest Mike, what would you consider 'a valid reason?' Whatever doubts everyone has about the 'timeline' or anything else it's still 'proven' that electricians were working in Maybrick's room on the day Mike Barrett phoned about the diary. It's transparently not impossible that the diary 'could' have got to Barrett on that day. And the scientific tests all appear to favour an older date for the diary. Again Mr Devil's advocate here

By the way chaps I'm in London at the moment. Just been on a 'ripper' walk. They don't even bother going to Goulston Street anymore and Mitre Square is almost unrecognisable! The cobbles are gone and there's bloody grass in the middle!!
Since Dodd has claimed that the diary wasn't seen there during earlier work, coupled with the fact that the electrician wasn't certain if the diary was found in 1989 or 1992, I'm not sure if the Battlecrease provenance is anything to hang our hats on, Herlock.

I'm not saying that the diary coming out of the house and ending up in Barrett's hands on the same day is impossible, but it's certainly not very probable, for reasons I've explained, and I'm asking those who support that version of events to explain how it was done.

It's silly for anyone to just say, well Rigby's mate took it at lunchtime into town, then they contacted Barrett at a pub, because we're getting back into the territory of making up random facts to account for odd inconsistencies.

You can have the book come out of the house and into the hands of Mr. T, if you wish to do so, but you'd have to show some logical reasoning to explain it away, and the same applies for this scenario being put forth regarding Rigby passing it to a mate, and that mate organizing a random meeting at a random building with a random bloke, and then randomly deciding to pass it over to Barrett, a man whom nobody seems to want to give any credence to most of the time, but in this scenario, he's obviously an important chap indeed!

I know that if I found a potentially important document that I felt had enough value to warrant a trip to the local random university, I'd follow that up by seeking out the local eccentric at the pub, he'd know what to do with it!

Not.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1426  
Old 09-20-2017, 03:13 PM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
And the scientific tests all appear to favour an older date for the diary.
Do they, though? I'm not sure if they actually do. The Mussilini diary was also found to be suitably aged, and we know that it was done so by sticking it in the oven. Nothing about the Maybrick diary is even remotely proven with regards to its age, and people constantly forget that, or just choose to ignore it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1427  
Old 09-20-2017, 03:26 PM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
What I'd like to ask supporters of an older hoax is this, who do you suppose wrote the diary?
It could have been George Grossmith.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1428  
Old 09-20-2017, 03:32 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,073
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
Do they, though? I'm not sure if they actually do. The Mussilini diary was also found to be suitably aged, and we know that it was done so by sticking it in the oven. Nothing about the Maybrick diary is even remotely proven with regards to its age, and people constantly forget that, or just choose to ignore it.
I'm in a hotel at the moment Mike so I have no books with me. I'm unsure how they could be scientifically 'proven' then. If every test that's been done to show the age can all be fooled by trickery what's left? Melvyn Harris for eg was keen to use science to disprove the diary. He failed (and it appears not very honestly either.) If science had disproved the diary I wonder if people on the anti side would have said 'this could be the result of trickery?' Or would hey have accepted it? Surely people can't ave it both ways?
To my mind it's bit like - Barrett announces the diary (liar.) - Barrett admits forging it (honest.) - Barrettt retracts forgery announcement (liar again.)
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1429  
Old 09-20-2017, 03:37 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,073
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
Since Dodd has claimed that the diary wasn't seen there during earlier work, coupled with the fact that the electrician wasn't certain if the diary was found in 1989 or 1992, I'm not sure if the Battlecrease provenance is anything to hang our hats on, Herlock.

I'm not saying that the diary coming out of the house and ending up in Barrett's hands on the same day is impossible, but it's certainly not very probable, for reasons I've explained, and I'm asking those who support that version of events to explain how it was done.

It's silly for anyone to just say, well Rigby's mate took it at lunchtime into town, then they contacted Barrett at a pub, because we're getting back into the territory of making up random facts to account for odd inconsistencies.

You can have the book come out of the house and into the hands of Mr. T, if you wish to do so, but you'd have to show some logical reasoning to explain it away, and the same applies for this scenario being put forth regarding Rigby passing it to a mate, and that mate organizing a random meeting at a random building with a random bloke, and then randomly deciding to pass it over to Barrett, a man whom nobody seems to want to give any credence to most of the time, but in this scenario, he's obviously an important chap indeed!

I know that if I found a potentially important document that I felt had enough value to warrant a trip to the local random university, I'd follow that up by seeking out the local eccentric at the pub, he'd know what to do with it!

Not.
They find the diary-get it checked at uni-someone takes it to Barrett because he's done a bit of writing and they think he might know who to approach to sell it-Barrett makes the phone call. I can't see anything impossible Or even improbable in that Mike. I'm not saying for a fact that it's true but it could be. Surely we can't discount something because we can't give a detailed itinerary of events?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1430  
Old 09-20-2017, 03:45 PM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I'm in a hotel at the moment Mike so I have no books with me. I'm unsure how they could be scientifically 'proven' then. If every test that's been done to show the age can all be fooled by trickery what's left? Melvyn Harris for eg was keen to use science to disprove the diary. He failed (and it appears not very honestly either.) If science had disproved the diary I wonder if people on the anti side would have said 'this could be the result of trickery?' Or would hey have accepted it? Surely people can't ave it both ways?
To my mind it's bit like - Barrett announces the diary (liar.) - Barrett admits forging it (honest.) - Barrettt retracts forgery announcement (liar again.)
It's a tricky one, which is the intent of a hoax in the first place, to deceive.

There would obviously be ways to prove that it was the real deal, but the simple fact is that nobody has yet done that to any great satisfaction.

There are conflicting views on the ink analysis for a reason.

Hoaxes are literally constructed to fool people, and this is what the diary has done, plain and simple. When you have a situation where no two people can agree on the age, then you look at the rest of it.

Here's my take: there are enough reasons to suggest hoax. There are enough reasons to suggest a more modern hoax.

Are there any reasons to suggest either a genuine article or an old hoax? People seem apprehensive about offering those reasons, if there are any.
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 11:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.