25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[Sam Flynn]

The Eight Little Whores rhyme... may well be a fraud or hoax or whatever, but its presence in the journal is not proof of it, nor even symptomatic of it.

It could well be symptomatic, in that a forger might feel inclined to believe that the "real Ripper" liked to write teasing little rhymes, when in all likelihood he did not. There are contemporary hoaxed letters with rhymes, and there are later books, like McCormick's, with their own almost certainly spurious rhymes. Someone wanting to make their text (be it a diary or whatever) appear to be authored by the Ripper might, after having read the Ripper literature, feel inclined to throw in the odd rhyme here and there "because that's what the Ripper would have done, innit?" A risky strategy, when it's by no means certain that the actual Ripper would have done anything of the sort.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Following publication of Leonard Matters’ book, Dr. Thomas Dutton wrote to the Daily Mail, 14th May 1929—

“Sir, — Living in Whitechapel (Aldgate) about the time of the Jack the Ripper murders, I took great interest in them from a medical point of view.

“I did not draw the same conclusion as Mr. Leonard Matters, but believe they were committed by a ship’s butcher.

“Having been a surgeon in the Mercantile Marine I have seen these butchers with even greater skill with the knife than many expert operating surgeons. After the murders, going home one night with a black bag in which was a masonic apron, I was accosted by two women who shouted ‘Jack the Ripper.’

“Thomas Dutton, M.D., 25 New Cavendish Street, Harley Street, W.1.”

No mention there of a Liverpool cotton merchant.

Dutton's Chronicles of Crime was a McCormick invention to promote his 1959 Pedachenko theory, and the Eight Little Whores rhyme—one of Jack the Ripper's "effective essays into verse"—was another invention based in part on retired policeman Robert Spicer's 16th March 1931 letter to the Daily Express, alleging that he had arrested Jack in Henage Court. His letter appeared in the wake of the equally bogus Robert James Lees story.

Check the chronology of Spicer's story. It puts the Henage Court arrest after Jack “had committed two murders” [between 31st August and 8th September 1888], but dates the doctor’s release from police custody later the same morning as having taken place in November 1888.

Still no mention of a Liverpool cotton merchant.

The Diary is late 20th Century.

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

[QUOTE=Iconoclast;425413]

I don't think this is rocket science. Maybrick sent in the poem to Central News or wherever, Dutton saw a copy of it, McCormick saw Dutton's notes and then referred to them in his much-maligned 1959 book. Dutton may not have copied the poem down correctly, nor may McCormick, but that's not the point. The trail from Maybrick's hand to McCormick's book is possibly this trail. I say possibly because quite clearly it possibly is the work of a hoaxer who relied on McCormick's work when creating the journal. We just don't know, do we?

It just rolls off the tongue ! Maybrick prepares a draft in the Journal, he writes a few lines in said Journal, and thinks I'll tell you what I'll go one better and sends the full poem in a letter to the police. Simple as. You know those hoaxers, have you hook line and sinker. A question though. Did Maybrick pen the entry in the Journal first, or did the letter to the police, with the finished poem come first?

My point about Naysayers is that they will home in on the latter version as the only version because it supports their casual dismissal of the journal. My point about the feeble-minded is that they will then take those comments as fact.

There are no feeble minded individuals viewing these threads. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

The journal makes references to rhymes being sent to the police. My brilliant History vs Maybrick shows that those rhymes appeared in the journal at just the right time. I think that was apropos Feldy, as it wasn't my conclusion, but nevertheless I believe that the point was well made. If a hoaxer wrote the journal, he or she did very well indeed to incorporate rhymes in the text. The first rhyme used the name Jack the Ripper and was penned not long after the second canonical murder. That's clever hoaxing in my book.

Your brilliant History v Maybrick ? Ermmm yes, ok. The hoaxer is following the progress of the books he has on the subject of JTR. It's no mystery that he has the events in order.

I couldn't give a toss if no-one agrees with my interpretation of the GSG. I don't study the Ripper because I seek popularity! I do it because I seek the truth. If I were the one person alive saying X and six billion saying Y, if I believed that X was correct then I would say it.

If you believe that James Maybrick and his family's initials are hidden in the GSG, then all I can say is that you're deluded.

The Eight Little Whores rhyme in the journal is not at all problematic, nor does it speak of some fraud or hoax. It may well be a fraud or hoax or whatever, but its presence in the journal is not proof of it, nor even symptomatic of it.

The "Eight Little Whores" rhyme doesn't appear in the Journal, merely a draft of it? I see that you're consistent as ever though in your defence of the Journal. It's another case of oh yes the poem the "Eight Little Whores" could indeed be the work of a hoaxer, but, it can't be ruled out as having been written by Maybrick. The difference between you and I though is I adopt the obvious answer, you the fantastic.

[PaulB]

Simon,
I think you'll find that the 'Chronicles of Crime'were not invented by Donald McCormick in 1959, but are mentioned in a newsaper as far back as 1935, and
allegedly claimed Jack the Ripper was ‘a middle-aged doctor, a man whose mind had been embittered by the death of his son. The latter had suffered cruelly at the hands of a woman of the streets, and the father believed this to be the cause of his brilliant son’s death’. The three-volume 'Chronicles' were owned by Miss Hermione Dudley, a friend and patient of Dr Dutton.

Of course, McCormick could have written the 1935 newspaper article.If so, it wasn't to promote a book that was over two decades in the future.

I hope you are keeping chipper.

Paul

[Kaz]

.....Simple as. You know those hoaxers, have you hook line and sinker...

Those hoaxers?

who are these hoaxers you talk about?

You're so sure there is a myriad of conmen behind this, who are these people?

[Observer]

Those hoaxers?

who are these hoaxers you talk about?

You're so sure there is a myriad of conmen behind this, who are these people?

Who said anything about a myriad? Do you really believe that the Journal, should it be a hoax, is the work of a single individual?

[Kaz]

Who said anything about a myriad? Do you really believe that the Journal, should it be a hoax, is the work of a single individual?

I was just wondering who YOU believe hoaxed this?

you said 'HOAXERS'


Why do you think it was 'created' and placed in the hands of the barrets... of all people?

[Phil Carter]

Hi all,

Let me just add something to this discussion if I may.

Any mention of Donald McCormick in relation to anything Ripper orientated must be taken with a heavy pinch of salt imo.
His 1959 book, then later a 2nd and 3rd edition in 1962 and 1970, USED to be seen as one of the iconic pieces of reading material on the subject. However, as the audience of interest widened, more and more people saw the book for what it was. History very liberally sprinkled with invention and falsities. And in his other books, this line of methodology is repeated.

It therefore must be concluded that Donald McCormick's written work in book form on anything connected with the Whitechapel Murders, is highly doubtful in terms of factual truth he presents. The infamous "Chronicles of Crime" by Dutton which McCormick uses in his theory is notable by it"s complete absence. Hermione Dudley, alleged receiver of the "three volumes of handwritten comments on all the chief crimes of the past sixty year", has never been identified.

In his book, McCormick claims to not only have seen these "Chronicles of Crime", but to have read and taken notes from them. He also claimed that Dutton had taken micro-photographs of the handwriting of Ripper letters and the Goulsten Street graffiti. These have never been seen either.
Apparently Sir Charles Warren, claims McCormick, ordered the destruction of any prints of these micro-photographs.
Again..a claim without any evidence.
He claimed Dutton was a friend of Abberline and advised the man during the murders...
in order to tie in HIS suspect, McCormick claims Abberline actually suspected Severin Klosowski.
All this along with many invented "conversations" between witnesses and police etc littering the book make the likelyhood of trustworthy truth rather impossible to believe as only one reference work he used, has been traced (Things I know by William Le Queux)..no other.
The conclusion must be that McCormick's work is unreliable.
It is with this in mind that one looks at the work of Melvin Harris, who challenged much of the McCormick connection with the Diary in his work "The Maybrick Hoax: Donald McCormick's legacy" here on Casebook.

This is just to give additional information to the "Eight little whores" poem presented in McCormick's book.



Phil

[Observer]

I was just wondering who YOU believe hoaxed this?

you said 'HOAXERS'


Why do you think it was 'created' and placed in the hands of the barrets... of all people?

There's more to the Barretts than meets the eye. We are constantly being told by both the believers in the Journal, and the theorists who believe it is an old hoax that Mike Barrett could not have been the author of the Journal. Why? Some have met him, and attest to his erratic nature, his drinking, his not being very bright, an inability to convey his thoughts, his confessions as being the author and then retracting the confessions. you get the idea. How many of those individual knew Mike Barrett before the Journal came to light? None. He apparently had articles accepted by a music magazine, and as I've said a thousand times the Journal is no work of outstanding literature. I contend that Mike Barrett could well have been the author of the Journal. I believe his wife helped him in this endeavour.

One final thing. Why do you suppose that Mike Barrett attempted to buy a Victorian diary, with a minimum of 20 pages prior to turning up with the photo album complete with the thoughts of James Maybrick?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

Fine thanks, apart from a few signs of encroaching old age.

I just checked what I had earlier written. You're absolutely right.

In a letter dated 15th May 1995 in reply to questions from researchers about the elusive Chronicles of Crime, Donald McCormick wrote that as a journalist he had reported Dutton’s death in the press, that between 1935 and 1938 he had run a news agency and was certain “my story” had been published in the Sunday Chronicle. He went on to narrow the dates— “I should say the actual date was between September 1935 and December 1936.”

The story appeared in the Sunday Chronicle, 17th November 1935.

McCormick’s logic appeared to be that the Chronicles of Crime were a fact because he had originally reported their existence. He also wrote that “in some way Hermione Dudley has confirmed my story, but I cannot recollect any more details and, as I have told you, all my records are now gone.”

In a later edition of his book McCormick wrote—

“He [Dutton] allowed me to take notes from them [the Chronicles of Crime] as long ago as 1932 . . . By a lucky chance my notes were safely tucked away, forgotten and then discovered after World War II.”

Serendipitous indeed.

If Donald McCormick was the Sunday Chronicle’s “special correspondent” in 1935 there would have been no need for him to track down the elusive Hermione Dudley in order to detail “some of the remarkable entries in these crime diaries,” when three years earlier he had read and noted them for himself.

In 1959 he recycled the mythical Chronicles of Crime as a launch pad for his Pedachenko theory.

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

This is just to give additional information to the "Eight little whores" poem presented in McCormick's book.



Phil

The thing is Phil, is it reasonable to assume that the "Eight Little Whores" poem, and the verse included in the diary, namely


One whore in heaven
two whores side by side
three whores all have died
four

are linked in any way. Or, are they two separate entities, and their similarities are purely coincidental?

[Phil Carter]

The thing is Phil, is it reasonable to assume that the "Eight Little Whores" poem, and the verse included in the diary, namely


One whore in heaven
two whores side by side
three whores all have died
four

are linked in any way. Or, are they two separate entities, and their similarities are purely coincidental?

Hello Observer,

Indeed. I totally agree. Which is why anything, imho, McCormick linked to the Diary should cause suspicion upon both. Imho.


Phil

[phantom]

Seven Little Whores

Hi all

Interesting posts.

While McCormick's book is certainly dodgy in many ways, I don't think the "Seven Little Whores" poem is necessarily a smoking gun re: the possibility that the Diary is a hoax.

It could be just a coincidence that the diary entry and McCormick's published poem is similar.

"Ten bottles of beer" is a very old English song predating 1888 and has been the inspiration behind many rhymes and songs. A variation "Ten Little Indians" was written in 1869.

http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=19006

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Little_Indians 1869

Possibly of more concern is that the author of the diary references Heneage Court i.e. PC Spicer's arrest of a Doctor, which I believe from memory is also referenced in McCormick's book in the form of a poem allegedly written by JTR - but I will have to check this tonight.

Cheers.

[Kaz]

There's more to the Barretts than meets the eye. We are constantly being told by both the believers in the Journal, and the theorists who believe it is an old hoax that Mike Barrett could not have been the author of the Journal. Why? Some have met him, and attest to his erratic nature, his drinking, his not being very bright, an inability to convey his thoughts, his confessions as being the author and then retracting the confessions. you get the idea. How many of those individual knew Mike Barrett before the Journal came to light? None. He apparently had articles accepted by a music magazine, and as I've said a thousand times the Journal is no work of outstanding literature. I contend that Mike Barrett could well have been the author of the Journal. I believe his wife helped him in this endeavour.

One final thing. Why do you suppose that Mike Barrett attempted to buy a Victorian diary, with a minimum of 20 pages prior to turning up with the photo album complete with the thoughts of James Maybrick?

Have you read Paul Feldmans book?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Final-Chapter-Virgin/dp/0753506378/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1502698578&sr=8-11&keywords=james+maybrick

Mike couldn't prove he wrote the diary. He was asked to do so and failed miserably. The guy (RIP) was having a nervous breakdown and drinking like a fish.


There really is no point in talking to you, you have a closed mind and I for one won't be reading anymore of your posts on the subject

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've always wondered why Tony Devereaux was introduced into the scenario. Surely Barrett would have known that his (the Devereaux) family would have been grilled about the provenance? Why didn't he just say ' I bought it from a bloke in the pub that I'd never seen before?' Less complicated for sure.