Where I am in all this!

[miakaal4]

As I have recently joined Casebook, and have already posted a couple of comments, I thought it would be fair to state what I beleive or feel about the case so all know where my comments are coming from. I have a BA in Modern History and have studied the Ripper case on and off for over 20 years. I would not say that my studies in the case have been very serious or in any way academic, more a sort of grim hobby!
I agree with most of the members who voted on the poll, that both Kominski and Maybrick are the most outstanding candidates as the killer. However I favour Maybrick much more than Kominski and I will say why below.
Kominski is described as a Jewish man who suffered bouts of insanity. He was seen by Schwartz attacking Stride. He was obviously a suspect.
So, would Schwartz have refused to testify against a fellow Jew knowing he was a crazy killer? (My instinct say's no, I think he would know he must.)
Would he refuse to testify if it was just around Kominski assaulting Stride? Yes, in this case he might. It is a much lesser crime, against a fallen gentile woman, and it might mean a lot of Jews get attacked in revenge.
So Kominski attacks Stride, Schwartz sees this and hurries on, noticing the Pipe man but keeping his head down, The Pipeman shouts "Lipski!" at Kominski who runs off behind Schwartz. Maybe.
Also, would MJK have let someone like Kominski into her room and be singing softly while he lounged dreamily on the bed?

The Diary has been said by a very qualified handwriting expert to have been written by someone who has serious mental heath issues. This expert has also said that the Dear Boss, letters were in a different but disguised handwriting. The author of the Diary claims to be the author of the letters.

Experts have agreed that the Diary is possibly as old as 1920 give or take 12 years. But we do not know what the conditions were that held the Diary. So let us be conservative and say 1920 give or take 40 years. Now we have 1880 to 1960. Well in 1960 it may have been much easier to aquire Victorian ink and paper, as there were many people still alive who were Victorian born, and had attics, chests and boxes full of old things just like Diaries.
Going to 1880 of course puts us well in the range of the murders, so not much to go on there. But then we get the Diary's silly little 'moan' about the "Tin Box empty". This item was revealed by Martin Fido in 1987 I think, and could not have been known to anyone before that year other than the policemen who were closely involved in the case or the killer. But as an Historian, even this would not make me stand up and say it must be Maybrick. What for me, is the clincher is why, a forger would want to put a Liverpool Cotten Merchant in the frame for it? Not forgetting that it would have to be a policeman close involved or the real killer. There is no answer to that question.
If Maybrick was the killer then the Dear Boss letters must be genuine. I know many believe it was a journalist, but then why would a journalist bother to disguise his handwriting, as the expert said? Maybrick certainly would in case a facsimle was printed. So, if all the suspects were put up for a bet and the winner was revealed I would back Maybrick, as I am 99.9% sure he is our man. Thanks for reading this, please comment.

[Wickerman]

Thee most astonishing thing today is that anyone should still be prepared to waste brain cells thinking about that bogus "Diary".

.

[RivkahChaya]

Thee most astonishing thing today is that anyone should still be prepared to waste brain cells thinking about that bogus "Diary".

.

Thank you for coming out and saying that.

Also, as to why a reporter would disguise his handwriting? Reporters wrote for a living. They turned in handwritten copy in 1888. They'd have probably a half dozen editors, and another dozen Linotype operators, who could recognize their handwriting at a glance, and several other colleagues who could make a very good guess. On top of that, there would be reams of examples of their writing floating about, because journalists want to get credit for what they write, so they are probably careful to label every page and scrap they write. It's even possible there would be policemen who could recognize their writing, if they left notes for fact-checking, or just communicated in writing with the police a lot. Reporters on the crime beat probably hung around the station, and since they were used to writing, maybe they even did some copying for the police in order to ingratiate themselves.

They were excellent candidates for people who'd want to disguise their writing, if they were writing a hoax letter.

[Hunter]

The most astonishing thing today is that anyone should still be prepared to waste brain cells thinking about that bogus "Diary".

Despite my long-time interest in the Whitechapel Murders and the life and times of the people involved, the acrimonious debates that used to flourish here kept me away from any discussion boards for more than a decade. I thought at the time, what a waste!

[RavenDarkendale]

miakaal4:

First off, welcome to the site

Second, if you believe truly that Maybrick's "diary" is genuine, don't allow naysayers to get to you. That Maybrick should be considered a suspect, I don't think many would disagree. The degree of seriousness as a suspect is shakier ground. I don't believe in the diary as gospel truth myself. Others are welcome to swear by it if they choose. I have stated elsewhere that I believe nothing cannot be forged, given skill and time. Could be forged, could be real, who knows?

Best of luck and jump right in to any conversation. Sometimes you have to wince and take a shot, sometimes people listen and discuss. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you. There is a long list of suspects, and at least a few people in favor of any given one.

James Maybrick isn't the longest shot as a suspect, there are some so ridiculous as to beg the question: What was this poster thinking?

Cheers

Raven

[Tom_Wescott]

Thee most astonishing thing today is that anyone should still be prepared to waste brain cells thinking about that bogus "Diary".

We've disagreed on many things, Wickerstix, but this won't be one of them.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Tom,

Let me second that notion. I, too, have disagreed with Jon at times but assuredly not about that comment.

Don.

[miakaal4]

Ho Ho.

Well thanks people, I was not expecting any comments yet but so many? This site is very much alive and full of strong feeling, so great to be among you all.I know my beliefs are not for all, but hey, come on what about my unanswered question? Any takers?

[Robert]

Welcome Mia

"Kominski (sic)......was seen by Schwartz attacking Stride."

How do you know this?

[RivkahChaya]

James Maybrick isn't the longest shot as a suspect, there are some so ridiculous as to beg the question: What was this poster thinking?

*cough*

That's not really what "begging the question means."

[Limehouse]

Kominski is described as a Jewish man who suffered bouts of insanity. He was seen by Schwartz attacking Stride. He was obviously a suspect.
So, would Schwartz have refused to testify against a fellow Jew knowing he was a crazy killer? (My instinct say's no, I think he would know he must.)
Would he refuse to testify if it was just around Kominski assaulting Stride? Yes, in this case he might. It is a much lesser crime, against a fallen gentile woman, and it might mean a lot of Jews get attacked in revenge.
So Kominski attacks Stride, Schwartz sees this and hurries on, noticing the Pipe man but keeping his head down, The Pipeman shouts "Lipski!" at Kominski who runs off behind Schwartz. Maybe.
Also, would MJK have let someone like Kominski into her room and be singing softly while he lounged dreamily on the bed?

The Diary has been said by a very qualified handwriting expert to have been written by someone who has serious mental heath issues.

What for me, is the clincher is why, a forger would want to put a Liverpool Cotten Merchant in the frame for it? Not forgetting that it would have to be a policeman close involved or the real killer. There is no answer to that question.

Hi Miakaal and welcome to the site

Some interesting ideas, but I do have a few problems.

I agree totally about Kosminski. I do not think he was the type of man who could control his behaviour sufficiently to make the women willing to go with him, even they were desperate. He ate food form the gutter, abused people verbally and was very unclean, even for Victorian times. I think the killer would have had to have been much more engaging.

A handwriting expert may well have thought the diary was written with someone with serious mental health issues - but is there any medical evidence that Maybrick had such issues? Did his physician, who saw him often think so?

Lastly, Maybrick was a good candidate for a forger because he was alive at the time and links could be made between locations in Liverpool (Whitechapel) and locations in London and his work as a cotton trader. Additionally, his death resulted in a high profile murder trial that left some questions unanswered. Also, there was lots of information about him available for a good researcher to dig out - rather like those supposedly involved in the 'Royal Conspiracy'. A forger could hardly point to a nameless and faceless candidate whose life was unknown and whose movemebnts were not recorded.

Best wishes

Julie

[Wickerman]

Well thanks people, I was not expecting any comments yet but so many? This site is very much alive and full of strong feeling, so great to be among you all.I know my beliefs are not for all, but hey, come on what about my unanswered question? Any takers?

My only regret, if thats the right word, is that with you being a new poster I sould have observed a little etiquette, and welcomed you to the boards first

I apologise for that, .... Welcome Mia.

If I'm not mistaken your questions have already been answered a decade ago. In the early days of Casebook (96-2000?) the "Diary" was the principal topic, essentially because Casebook was initially created to debate the Maybrick Diary.

As nothing new has surfaced on the subject it is a little redundant to regurgitate old questions which have been dealt with adequately already.

The Diary is just a fraud, whether it is an old fraud or a more recent fraud is still open to debate.


The Diary
Jon Smyth

In a brown paper package, like many you’d see.
It was coming to London, was coming to me.

Then a knock on my door, and as I turned to look.
In walked a man, with just half a book.

“It’s a diary” he said, “it was given to me”
“It’s a hell of a story, just wait and see”

So we sat in my office, in silence we read.
And in shear disbelief, I looked up and said.

“To see if it’s real, and in case there’s a doubt,
some tests will be done, we’ll have it checked out”

So we tested the paper, we tested the ink.
Then at first our results made my heart want to sink.

Then a second opinion, in case it was wrong.
And what we heard back made us want to go on.

The writing we thought we could verify clearly.
but did we succeed ? .....well, some would say ...nearly.

The age of the book we established, .....almost.
but the age of the ink ? .....well, some would say ....close.

They said that the words such a killer might write.
I said, “could we prove it ?” ....well, some said, ...”not quite”.

And in test after test more opinions we sought.
the proof would elude us, it always fell short.

So with money and time we invested so long.
We had to show confidence, we were not wrong.

And with heads held up high, we then published our word.
And stated quite firmly, ....”no one could prove fraud”

Jon :-) :-)

[RivkahChaya]

I wasn't going to, but since you asked, here's some feedback on your other questions, and some bits that are just comments:

The Diary has been said by a very qualified handwriting expert to have been written by someone who has serious mental heath issues.

Deleted agent stuff is bad. "The diary has been said...." By whom? Name the expert, or it's just gossip. Other people need to be able to go and look up the expert's credentials, and make their own judgments about the "very qualified" part. If you can't remember the name, then at least say where you got the information.

Lots of people have serious mental health issues, and don't commit murder. Having a mental health issue is not a prerequisite for committing murder, either.

This expert has also said that the Dear Boss, letters were in a different but disguised handwriting. The author of the Diary claims to be the author of the letters.

OK, now we really need to know who this expert is who is so good, that he or she can, based on a very small sample, with no other exemplar, state that the same person wrote two things, but was using disguised writing in one? I have seen experts deem writing disguised, and belonging to another, known person, but in those cases, the disguised sample is very long, so that it is easy to see how it begins one way, and as it goes on for several paragraphs or pages, deteriorates into something much closer to a known example of the undisguised writing, which is acknowledged to be that of the writer, and has a documented provenance.

Experts have agreed that the Diary is possibly as old as 1920 give or take 12 years. But we do not know what the conditions were that held the Diary. So let us be conservative and say 1920 give or take 40 years.

That isn't conservative. That is liberal. Also, completely made up. "Conservative" would be to underestimate, or use the smaller of two estimates, not to pull 32 out of the air, and add it to 12.

"Tin Box empty". This item was revealed by Martin Fido in 1987 I think, and could not have been known to anyone before that year other than the policemen who were closely involved in the case or the killer.

All due respect to Martin Fido, but if he could find out about it, so could someone else.

[/quote]But as an Historian, even this would not make me stand up and say it must be Maybrick. What for me, is the clincher is why, a forger would want to put a Liverpool Cotten Merchant in the frame for it? Not forgetting that it would have to be a policeman close involved or the real killer. There is no answer to that question.[/quote]Huh? The forger needed somebody who dies or goes to prison, preferably dies, and very publicly, shortly after the murders, to explain why they stop, so that he doesn't need to make up a reason for them stopping, and include it in the diary, or pretend like this is just volume 1, which conveniently ends right after the MJK murder, and no one knows where volume 2 is. He needs someone who is well-known enough that his life can be researched, but not so well-known that he'll be easy to double-check.

Other points in Maybrick's favor: he traveled a lot, getting him away from London prior to the murders, answering the "where are previous victims?" question, and also opening up the possibility of theorizing that random murders on both sides of the Atlantic could be his.

He died of poisoning, and that is on the record. His wife was convicted of murdering him, but then released; the basis of her release was judicial misconduct at her trial, but it leaves open the possibility that Maybrick was some kind of drug addict who overdosed, and his wife was innocent all along.

FWIW, it's quite possible his wife, Florence, did murder him, and got away with it, because her judge behaved like a jerk. Maybrick had affairs, but one in particular may have set his wife off, because he had a mistress who was living with him in one of the other cities where he had an office, and also calling herself "Mrs. James Maybrick." It seems Florence found out about this shortly before JM became suddenly ill. Even though the diary documents a long addiction, the historical record shows normal health, then sudden illness, decline over a couple of weeks, and death.

If Maybrick was the killer then the Dear Boss letters must be genuine. I know many believe it was a journalist, but then why would a journalist bother to disguise his handwriting, as the expert said?

I already addressed this at length.

Maybrick certainly would [disguise his writing] in case a facsimle was printed.

What? do you mean a facsimile of the JTR letters, or of the diary? If you mean of the letters, that reasoning applies to anyone, including hoaxers. If you mean the diary, then, what? Surely he couldn't expect to get off by claiming that the handwriting in the diary didn't match the ripper letters?

[Cogidubnus]

Welcome to the boards Miakaal...like it or not, you certainly seem to be in at the deep end! Please don't let it put you off though...

All the best

Dave

[miakaal4]

No worries my skin is thick!

Okay, well the "expert" I mentioned was Anna Koren, Director of Graphology Centre in Haifa, a member of the American Association of Graphologists, and Forensic document examiner for the Israeli Minister of justice. At least she was when she examined the documents. She saw the Diary and facsimiles of the Dear Boss letters. She was not told anything about the case or what to look for. After a 20 minute examination she said the author of the Diary was;
"Unstable, inner conflicts, inferiority, hypochondriac, brutal, a distorted image of his masculinity, deep rooted loneliness, exhibitionism, and a tendancy for his behaviour to be repeated in cycles". This information was taken from "The Mammoth Book of JTR.(Jakubowski and Braund 1999)
The Tin Box information was on a list that was kept in a closed file for 99 years, so no, someone could not have seen the info before Mr Fido.
And if someone wanted to frame Maybrick, they would have also had to be certain that he never had an alibi for any of the accepted killings, and the most intimate details about his family life! To know all that, and to have picked Maybrick to frame, the "forger" would have had to have been around in 1889 AND know about the Tin Box?