Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who was the author of the 'Maybrick' diary? Some options.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    and all you do, other then when your posting erroneous arguments, when you try to make an argument at all, is respond with inane one or two sentence posts trying to be witty.

    and I'm going all right. there are now three threads going on right now about the diary. yay! I'm starting to think this is really just all kind of wind up to keep this thing going, when it should have been put out of its misery a long time ago.

    its actually quite sad really, but the diary defenders and all theyve written in support of it will be as Phillip Sugden so eloquently put it- stuck like flies in amber forever for all the world to see.

    I'm getting off the diary merry go round-but do have fun.
    Your not wrong Abby it's clearly a modern forgery.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Spider View Post
      James Maybrick
      Hi "Spider". I know you have some very interesting views on this subject, thought-provoking and well researched. When you will be airing these ideas publically? I think they will add another dimension to this old debate.

      Comment


      • #33
        Melvin Harris never spoke of a 'Nest of Forgers.' This was actually Keith Skinner's phrase---a somewhat obvious attempt to make Harris's claim seem as ridiculous as possible. Sorry Keith, but that's how I see it. That many people still refer to a 'Nest of Forgers' proves the effectiveness of this feathery ruse, but, to my mind, it does not actually resolve whether or not Harris uncovered the truth.

        Now, while I can appreciate that some might be skeptical, what Harris was actually quoted as saying (in the Evening Standard) was that there were 3 people involved in the hoax. One was Mike Barrett, the other two were not named, but information "leaked," and it was widely assumed that one was the alleged "penman," Gerard Kane, a friend of Tony Devereux's.

        There was, in fact, considerable similarity between Kane's handwriting and that in the Diary, particularly in the odd way he made the letter 'K,' with a sort of quirky dog-legged hook. His 'T's were also rather interesting. Yet, as with many handwriting abnormalities, this hooked K was intermittent. An article by Harris showing 7 or 8 examples of this hook was published in "Ripper Notes" back around 2002 or so, but when discussed in the "Inside Story," the 3 authors chose to use another page from the Diary where the hook was not evident, and then claimed there was no such similarity. Keith and Caz both post here, so they can explain their reasoning for switching the textual examples used, but --in my opinion---it seemed to me they were avoiding the ones Harris had pointed out, thus trying to quickly dismiss the possibility, without fully exploring it. So, as I said earlier, the possibility of Kane's involvement or non-involvement was never resolved to my satisfaction, and probably never will be.

        The new 'floorboards' provenance, meanwhile, could just as easily be called "the Nest of Liars," because one of its chief ingredients is that Mike Barrett, Eddie Lyons, Anne Graham, Paul Dodd, and possibly others, are all lying about what was or wasn't found under the floorboards in March,1992. It boggles the mind.

        To answer Chris Jones: Back around 2002 I conducted the very experiment you describe in your post. I sat down with a blank sheet of paper and listed every verifiable Maybrickian "fact" in the Diary: Bobo, "Bunny," a new source of arsenic, the Grand National, etc. etc. There is a great deal of repetition in the Diary's text and there are only about 40 or 45 Maybrickian "facts." The rest is window dressing. I then studied the standard works on the Maybrick Case and soon found that ALL of these 'facts' could be found in Bernard Ryan's "Poisoned Life." Except one. Ryan does not, in fact, mention the fast speed of the Grand National, so this would have to be found elsewhere. "Nothing the matter with my health" was there, as you note, and also the suggestive phrase about Maybrick 'frequently visiting his club." Barrett later named "the Ryan book" as a source for the Diary during a taped conversation, which, along with other things, convinced me that Mike had inside knowledge. Along with his purchase of a blank Diary, his lying about the word processor, his use of an alias, his amazing unearthing of the Crashaw citation, the police inventory list, the failure of the ink solubility test, his ownership of Liverpool Tales, etc., EVERYTHING pointed to the Diary as having been written in 1991-1992 and Barrett knowing all about it. I dismissed McNeil's ion migration test as an obtuse and eccentric experiment not repeatable by other scientists, and repeatability, is, of course, the backbone of science. No, we will probably never know whether it was Kane or whether it was Anne who helped Mike, but is this really so very important in your mind? Paul Begg's "3" questions can be answered with complete confidence: When? 1991-92. Who? Mike Barrett & his accomplice. Why? Financial gain. Barret made aprox £25,000 in royalties the first year or so, before it crashed and burned.

        Comment


        • #34
          By the way, I never met Mike Barrett. But I think I went much further than any member of the public could reasonably be expected to go: I read Feldman, I read Harrison, I read 'Inside Story,' I watched the video, I read Melvin Harris's reports, and I listened to several hours of Mike's rambling audio tapes. I came away with the decided opinion that Mike was a chameleon. What he said depended entirely on who the audience was.

          Comment


          • #35
            It has nothing to do with JTR like the Royal conspiracy, but some people
            like slimy/sleazy/gossipy stuff,the National Enquirer side of this "field".
            But I guess street rules,you leave people alone.
            Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
            M. Pacana

            Comment


            • #36
              Hi all

              To remind anyone who doesn't know, Chris Jones will be coming to speak at RipperCon 2018 in Baltimore over the weekend of April 7-8.

              Specifically, Chris will speak on “The Maybricks of Liverpool: More George & Ringo than Lennon & McCartney?”



              Chris taught for 36 years in secondary schools in Liverpool, served for many years as Head of History in a Merseyside school, and later as Deputy Head Teacher at one of the city's largest comprehensive schools. His now retired from teaching and has formed his own hiking company, Simply Trekking. He spent three weeks in September trekking up to Everest base camp.

              In 2007, Jones organized the Trial of James Maybrick at the Liverpool Cricket Club across the street from the former Maybrick mansion, Battlecrease House. Following the success of this event, he wrote the widely acclaimed book The Maybrick A to Z in which he tried to take an objective review of the evidence surrounding Florence Maybrick's 1889 trial for the arsenic murder husband James and also James' alleged links to the Ripper murders. He has continued his research into James and especially Florence, and has given talks on the Maybricks in both Britain and the United States, including in Florence's home town of Mobile, Alabama. He has written several articles about the Maybrick case, most recently a critique of Bruce Robinson's We All Love Jack, in which Robinson made certain doubtful claims with regard to the conduct of Florence's trial. His current research is focused on the claims that the so-called Maybrick Diary was found by electricians working in Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992.

              Here are some further notes on the Maybricks and Chris's talk:

              For a week in August 1889, the eyes of the world were focused on a sensational trial in Liverpool. A young American, Florence Maybrick, was on trial for the murder of her much older husband, a respected city cotton trader, whom she allegedly killed by means of arsenic poisoning. Finally released from prison in 1904 (but never pardoned), she returned to the U.S. the following year, when she again dominated the front pages of major newspapers.

              In 1992, the supposed Diary of Jack the Ripper was "discovered" and overnight it turned James Maybrick into arguably the most controversial of all Ripper suspects. Not considered a suspect at the time of the Whitechapel murders and unmentioned in the famous Macnaghten Memorandum or any other contemporary police document, Maybrick was not linked to the killings until the emergence of the so-called Diary. His credibility as a Ripper suspect is therefore intrinsically bound up with the authenticity of this document—or the lack of it.

              In his talk, Jones will look at both Florence and James Maybrick. Was one a manipulative, clever murderer and was the other the most infamous serial killer of all time? Or, are both of them relatively ordinary individuals who have been unjustly accused of crimes they didn’t commit? He will examine the key moments in Florence’s trial and why the jury produced a guilty verdict. He will then address the big question—did Florence really kill James?

              Jones will then review the key arguments for and against James being a credible Ripper suspect. He will analyse the new evidence that has recently surfaced that arguably provides some much needed provenance for the Diary. Was James Maybrick really Jack the Ripper or instead an arsenic addict whose name has been cleverly woven into a forged document in an elaborate and clever hoax?

              Don’t miss out on RipperCon in Baltimore, April 7-8. Only fifty places available! See information at www.RipperCon.com -- upcoming deadline for registration February 14.

              Best regards

              Chris
              Christopher T. George
              Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
              just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
              For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
              RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
                Specifically, Chris will speak on “The Maybricks of Liverpool: More George & Ringo than Lennon & McCartney?”
                That is such a good title for a talk!
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • #38
                  George wrote the best ever Lennon & McCartney song according to Frank.
                  My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                  Dave.

                  Smilies are canned laughter.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
                    George wrote the best ever Lennon & McCartney song according to Frank.
                    There could be something in what you say.
                    G U T

                    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      A modern forgery. Basically because the diary's provenance is non existent. For instance, according to Anne's bizarre version of events, it was passed down through the generations of her family, for almost a century, like some incredibly valuable Victorian heirloom. And yet, during this time nobody bothers to try and sell it, or to get valued or authenticated. In fact, the only person who even seems to have bothered reading it was Anne herself. And then, wait for it...Anne suddenly has the bright idea of covertly persuading TD to give it to her husband in the hope that he would turn it into a novel, and in order to boost his self esteem! To add to this nonsense, Anne's father then made the incredible claim that Florence Maybrick was his grandmother. Of course, not a shred of credible evidence is offered in support of this outlandish assertion.

                      We then have the alternative version. Apparently one or more electricians discovered the diary at Battlecrease and then gave it/sold it to Mike, who then promptly contacts a literary agent the same day. Of course, not a scrap of evidence is offered in support of this theory. For instance, Mike had no known connection to the electricians and, in fact, vehemently denied knowing them.

                      And how on earth does this scenario make sense anyway? I mean, presumably the electrician bunks off work and then somehow, on the same day, he just gives the diary to Mike, a man that he's apparently never met, despite the fact that he considers it to be so potentially valuable that he also fits in a trip to Liverpool University, with seemingly the intention of getting it valued/authenticated.

                      Or perhaps he just bumps into Mike in the Saddle on the night of the discovery. Mike then phones directory enquiries and says something like, "You're not going to believe this but I've just bought Jack the Ripper's diary from some stranger in the pub-poor fool had no idea what it may be worth. Of course, I've managed to fully authenticate it over a few pints...please put me through to a random literary agent."

                      Hilarious!
                      Last edited by John G; 02-06-2018, 12:14 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by John G View Post
                        A modern forgery. Basically because the diary's provenance is non existent. For instance, according to Anne's bizarre version of events, it was passed down through the generations of her family, for almost a century, like some incredibly valuable Victorian heirloom. And yet, during this time nobody bothers to try and sell it, or to get valued or authenticated.
                        To be fair, I don't think anyone claimed that. My understanding is that Anne claimed it was given to Billy Graham in a trunk with other effects left to him by his Grandmother. He took no interest in it, and he eventually gave it to Anne who also had no interest in it until she had the idea of giving it to Mike via Tony. You don't believe the story, fair enough, but it was Keith Skinner's favoured version of events until the 'Battlecrease provenance' became more compelling to him. Personally, I put more stock in the opinion of someone who's been there witnessing the unfolding of the Diary saga first hand, and speaking to all those involved, for 25 years than a bunch of keyboard detectives on an internet forum.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by StevenOwl View Post
                          To be fair, I don't think anyone claimed that. My understanding is that Anne claimed it was given to Billy Graham in a trunk with other effects left to him by his Grandmother. He took no interest in it, and he eventually gave it to Anne who also had no interest in it until she had the idea of giving it to Mike via Tony. You don't believe the story, fair enough, but it was Keith Skinner's favoured version of events until the 'Battlecrease provenance' became more compelling to him. Personally, I put more stock in the opinion of someone who's been there witnessing the unfolding of the Diary saga first hand, and speaking to all those involved, for 25 years than a bunch of keyboard detectives on an internet forum.
                          Okay, but the whole story of Anne surreptitiously giving the diary to Mike, her husband at the time, via Tony with the intention of boosting his self esteem, or in the hope that he would turn it into a novel, seems bizarre to me. And why did she think it would be suitable material to turn into a novel, unless she saw some value in the diary? In which case, why no attempt to get it valued or authenticated?

                          Of Course Keith's views should be highly respected, although the fact that he's changed his mind over the years demonstrates what a complex case this is.

                          I'm also not sure what Keith's current views are. Does he think the diary is a modern forgery? Does he believe the diary was unearthed at Battlecrease? Because there isn't one iota of evidence to support the latter option-none of the electricians, for instance claimed to have discovered the diary at Battlecrease. And how did it then get into Mike's possession on the same day?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by StevenOwl View Post
                            To be fair, I don't think anyone claimed that. My understanding is that Anne claimed it was given to Billy Graham in a trunk with other effects left to him by his Grandmother. He took no interest in it, and he eventually gave it to Anne who also had no interest in it until she had the idea of giving it to Mike via Tony. You don't believe the story, fair enough, but it was Keith Skinner's favoured version of events until the 'Battlecrease provenance' became more compelling to him. Personally, I put more stock in the opinion of someone who's been there witnessing the unfolding of the Diary saga first hand, and speaking to all those involved, for 25 years than a bunch of keyboard detectives on an internet forum.
                            'A bunch of keyboard detectives' - Steven, I have some ointment you can put on your saddle-sore backside when you decide to climb down off your high-horse.

                            Whether or not someone has 'been there witnessing' the unfolding of various narratives has literally no bearing on their ability to spot logical and narrative absurdities in a given story. We're supposed to believe that a family had the diary of a famous murder victim in their possession for years - a diary in which he sensationally details the fact that he is also Jack the friggin Ripper - and they don't tell anyone about it!? They don't publicize it!? They don't cash in? They don't make any attempt to get it valued or authenticated? They don't notice the media Ripper-fest in 1988 and decide to tell someone that, yeah, we actually know who he was and we have his diary in the sideboard at home??!! The one thing they decide to do with it is pass it on covertly to a bored unemployed family member in the hope that he might turn it into a novel and boost his self-esteem!!!??? Why turn it into a novel? You OWN JACK THE RIPPER'S DIARY!!!

                            It is absurd on its face, preposterous, utterly false, and I frankly don't care who has met which party and had coffee with them, it's an unbelievable story.

                            And besides: if Keith has become personally involved, talked with these people, and used to hold Anne's story the most likely, but then changed his mind and now believes the floorboards story most likely - which is a complete change - then what special extra credibility does that give him? He believed one thing likely, now he believes a completely different thing most likely, but that's ok, because he met these people (some of whom must inescapably have been lying to him through their teeth) and we armchair detectives haven't?! Really, that's what counts to you? That's thoroughly effing dismal, mate.

                            (None of that is any sort of attack on Keith Skinner, whose work I have appreciated for many years, and for whom I have nothing but the highest respect; it's merely an attack on this "I trust Keith because he met them and you didn't" line of reasoning.)
                            Last edited by Henry Flower; 02-06-2018, 03:12 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Excellent post, Henry.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                Excellent post, Henry.
                                I actually stood up and applauded after reading it.
                                My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                                Dave.

                                Smilies are canned laughter.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X