Diary to Ripper letter handwriting comparison

[Carol]

Furthermore, Soothy...

The Twelve Days of Christmas: probably French in origin,
first appeared in England in about 1780.

One, two buckle my shoe: first published in 1805.



Might as well debunk this one too:

Michael Maybrick, at the start of his career, did write
his own lyrics. From his obituary:


"...Speaking at the Mayoral banquet at Ryde in 1911, when relinquishing the duties of Mayor, Mr. Maybrick said...

When he wrote his first song, 'A Warrior Bold', he was living in chambers. He had a bad cold and was unable to sing at Wolverhampton, where he had an engagement. While in bed he wrote the words and music of that song and took it to Mr. Arthur Chappell, of Chappell and Co. When the latter wanted to know what it was like he sang it to him. He said he would take five guineas for it, but Mr. Chappell said 'What! For an unknown composer?' It ended in his selling his first song for 5s. But there was a royalty attached, and that had gone a long way beyond four figures. Some time after he wrote 'Nancy Lee', he thought in 1878. That was also written when he was in bed, with a bad cold..."

(ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY PRESS. Saturday August 30th 1913.)


Liv

Hi there, Liv,

I'm just beginning to catch up on all things Casebook and came across this! You will never fail to amaze me! I've never worried about the Diary author writing what he did about Michael's ability to write 'ditties'. After all, it was very common in the middle classes in Victorian times to 'play about' with words. Just look through any old Punch volume. But not being able to say anything on Casebook myself about this (too scared!) I have remained silent on this. And now here you are with PROOF!

Carol

[caz]

During the investigation the FBI was called in and put out a profile of who the serial killer would be, that is an unemployed white male in his early to mid twenties. The FBI asserted that he would have trouble with relationships (particularly those with women) and would have a criminal record. They also stated the killer would not be able to keep a job for any length of time. Problem is when Prince was caught (in large part to a pool sign in sheet) the FBI was completely wrong.

Hi Jordan,

You make a good point. Where the profilers may be going wrong is that if you have a population that is top heavy with lower class white people, then any unspecified criminal is more likely to be found among that group than any other, purely on a numbers basis. They may as well say that the wanted man is likely to have blood group O. In addition, your average criminal will not be able to offend too many times before getting a record, possibly involving a prison sentence, with all the consequent employment and relationship problems this is likely to invite.

In short, profilers may be doing little more than stating the bleedin' obvious here - and it's little wonder that they can come unstuck when a serial offender is finally caught. The longer they can manage to remain unidentified, the better the chances may be that they are not from the most likely group statistically.

Love,

Caz
X

[ChainzCooper]

Hi BTCG!

Well, this thread has moved on since I was last here! I'm sorry I couldn't join in with Soothsayer et al as complications over the weekend proved annoyingly constricting. Not that I would have been much use had I been here as, quite frankly - and I don't wish to sound rude or patronising when I say this - I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about BCTG. Your main points are mild conjecture at the best.

For starters, I am perfectly aware that Mr Barrett has signed sworn affidavits to the effect that he forged the diary along with Anne. But are you also aware of the equally numerous amount of times he has retracted his statement and said that he didn't forge it? These include the most up to date opinion we have from him that the diary is indeed a genuine document. Why is it that you seem to ignore these facts? I can assure you, two minutes in the company of Mr Barrett and I could quite convincingly put to bed any suggestion about whether he forged the diary. I await the opportunity.

Your point about the 'Eight little whores' poem has been dealt with more than amply by Soothsayer and others of the same ilk, so forgive me if I don't elaborate on it any further.

I do, however, agree that Walter Sickert sent letters to various recipients of the time. His handwriting sometimes crosses that of some of the letters that I am researching and so it can be quite difficult to distinguish between the two.

The main point is the fact that everyone of your arguments can be argued against to the point where they become superfluous. Thus proving that they are not definitive proof of anything.

I have studied the crimes of Jack the ripper for many years now, like my father before me. Indeed I came to the subject long before the diary came into the public domain. I have never been convinced that Jack the Ripper was some lunatic scrabbling around the gutter looking for food, or a mad doctor who killed woman for some equally inadequetly explained reason. I have always believed that Jack the Ripper was most likely to be a white, middle-aged gentleman with some form of grievance against woman. The Mary Kelly killing proves this. That was not the work of a simple murderer.

When the diary came along, everything felt write about the candidate. But, being a resonable man, I wanted to examine the arguments for and against, study the diary for myself, and then form my own opinions based on my research. So far, all that I have found has only proved to me that the diary is not a modern forgery and, whoever wrote it sent letters to the police (etc.) and would have needed to have had knowledge of the crimes that would have required them to have had access to information at the highest level. If someone were to prove me wrong, then fair enough - I am wrong. But so far nothing has been offered up to prove me or anyone else involved in the pro-diary research wrong.

I am simply trying to establish the provance of the diary through facts that people can observe with there own eyes. I have offered up a little of this and, in the near future, I hope to offer up a lot more. It seems to me that - and again I do not wish to sound rude - all the evidence for the diary NOT being genuine seems to rely on mere surmise or conjecture, or second hand accounts from people that say they have the facts, but for which no concrete evidence is ever offered up.



Kind regards,

Tempus

I think you are onto something here Tempus. I recently viewed a program about serial killer Cleophus Prince who murdered college co-eds in San Diego in the early 90's. His signature was multiple stab wounds to one breast which was his sexual high he got when killing.(Similar to the Rippers signature way of mutilating) During the investigation the FBI was called in and put out a profile of who the serial killer would be, that is an unemployed white male in his early to mid twenties. The FBI asserted that he would have trouble with relationships (particularly those with women) and would have a criminal record. They also stated the killer would not be able to keep a job for any length of time. Problem is when Prince was caught (in large part to a pool sign in sheet) the FBI was completely wrong. Prince was black,employed, lived with his girlfriend, and had no criminal record whatsoever. He was also well liked by everyone who knew him. So put together what we know now to what people didn't know until recently. And always remember who George Hutchinson described he saw and connect the dots. I think you're looking at the opposite of what Scotland Yard thought and what the FBI profilers are thinking. This killer isn't who most think he is
Jordan

[caz]

Hello Caroline,

It was a generalisation re tricksters as a whole in the genre, and when it comes to the Diary puppeteers- well, one day perhaps, just perhaps- what was it the police used to write again- oh yes, one day perhaps the words "I beg to report..." may pop up. Who knows, eh?

It ain't gonna happen, Phil.

There is no evidence that anyone alive knows who wrote the diary or why, so it's a presumption that anyone alive is a 'puppeteer', as in knowingly pulling the strings of a recently created 'trick'.

And that's another presumption - that the diary author was a 'trickster' hellbent on criminal deception. (That's a rather Maybrickian idea, isn't it? ) If the diary had been serialised in Punch in the wake of the Maybrick Trial, I have little doubt that it would have fooled nobody, and its author would have had no such expectations. I suspect he/she would be highly bemused to think of it finally emerging in an era when it would be taken seriously (either as the real thing, or as someone's serious attempt to swindle the great and gullible unwashed).

How about a darkly comic slice of mischievous fiction, with the power to make fools of everyone in some way or another, while not even trying?

And haven't Chelsea done well!! My partner is a lifelong Spurs fan so I'm surprised he's still talking to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[Cogidubnus]

Drama Queen

Sorry Phil I know it's irreverent, not to mention irrelevant, but I'm reminded of a superb graffito I saw in the toilet of a pub in Kemp Town (the gay area of Brighton):-

"God Save the Quoon"

"Don't you mean Queen?"

"What's the matter with us Quoons?"


I've always chuckled over it

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Oh you drama queen, Phil.

The clock has been ticking and tocking so long since the diary author(s) had their laugh and poke at anyone that I'm pretty sure they are beyond all your earthly condemnation. In fact, I can hear them having the last laugh by saying "Who's Hitler?"

The point is they haven't left 'a trail back to their front gate a mile wide' or they'd have been exposed years ago. There is no trail.

I bet you anything you like you'll never find the author(s) dead or alive - even if you were willing to look in more than one direction.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caroline,

It was a generalisation re tricksters as a whole in the genre, and when it comes to the Diary puppeteers- well, one day perhaps, just perhaps- what was it the police used to write again- oh yes, one day perhaps the words "I beg to report..." may pop up. Who knows, eh?

If one were to picture me as I write- the last thing you'd thėnk of is a queen- let alone one with dramatic intent- as I am as about as boring as they come. Glass of Vimto and a packet of cheese and onion crisps doesnt exactly aspire to the heights of Agatha Christie. Haha!

No- I'll leave the amateur dramatics to the thespians. As for queen, I prefer Teddy Pendergrass or Sean Connery to Freddie Mercury...haha!

Best wishes

Phil (A very proud lifelong Chelsea supporter!)

[caz]

Hello Simon,

I totally agree.
Funny thing is that some think that having a laugh and a poke at people can be done again and again and again. What they dont realise is they leave a trail back to their front gate a mile wide. Tick tock says the clock....

So given the right time and circs, Id help the up the ante bet.
And all the deflection from self appointed spoilers in the world wont help. There have been more dishonesty points notched up in this sordid affair than those portraying Adolf Hitler as a kind man who loved chėldren and was fond of fluffy pink eyed wabbits
.
Best wishes

Phil

Oh you drama queen, Phil.

The clock has been ticking and tocking so long since the diary author(s) had their laugh and poke at anyone that I'm pretty sure they are beyond all your earthly condemnation. In fact, I can hear them having the last laugh by saying "Who's Hitler?"

The point is they haven't left 'a trail back to their front gate a mile wide' or they'd have been exposed years ago. There is no trail.

I bet you anything you like you'll never find the author(s) dead or alive - even if you were willing to look in more than one direction.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

"Everything is a source of fun
Nobody's safe, for we care for none . . ."

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Indeed, you couldn't have. Or perhaps you could have, but you didn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hi Caz,

Given the right set of circumstances I would be willing to substantially up the ante.

"Everything is a source of fun
Nobody's safe, for we care for none . . ."

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

I totally agree.
Funny thing is that some think that having a laugh and a poke at people can be done again and again and again. What they dont realise is they leave a trail back to their front gate a mile wide. Tick tock says the clock....

So given the right time and circs, Id help the up the ante bet.
And all the deflection from self appointed spoilers in the world wont help. There have been more dishonesty points notched up in this sordid affair than those portraying Adolf Hitler as a kind man who loved chėldren and was fond of fluffy pink eyed wabbits
.
Best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Given the right set of circumstances I would be willing to substantially up the ante.

"Everything is a source of fun
Nobody's safe, for we care for none . . ."

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

Blimey, you are only prepared to lose fourpence these days on such a wager?

For BTCG:

There is no final proof of when 'eight little whores' was written or by whom. But even if McCormick did write it in the mid 20th C, there is no evidence that the diary author ever read it or knew of its existence. Three Little Maids From School is arguably a much more likely inspiration for the relevant lines in the diary and was very well known by the middle of 1888.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

My fourpence is still on the diary having been written to grease the wheels of the centenary Ripper bandwagon.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

The whole thing about anachronisms is that they always arrive late.

Actually, they are errors assigning something to an earlier or to a later age than it belongs to. So there have been plenty of the latter buggers trotted out over the years and found wanting (odd words or phrases, the handwriting style, paper etc) while not a single proven error of the former variety.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

One of the critical components of evidence is establishing a chain of custody. Evidence is generally not accepted if a chain of custody cannot be established. Enter our first problem.

And you would expect a chain of custody to have been established if this had been the genuine confession of JtR - how precisely? This is all part of the same problem, and it was there before the diary entered.

Finally, we are given two sworn affidavits by Michael Barrett outlining how he and Ann created the diary.

But if this wasn't enough, Barrett and his wife made one huge, glaring error: they relied on a mistake made by another Ripper author...

...This is an oil & water type problem:the poem is a 20th Century work. It cannot exist in a 19th Century diary.

Oh, right, so what are you still doing here? More to the point, what is any of us still doing here? Must be something in the water.

Here's the real issue...

So was the issue of the Barretts forging it and using a 20th C poem not real then? Or not relevant?

Anyone who had a hand in this ought to be ashamed of themself.

I would agree with you there. But I thought you knew whose hand was in it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hi Tempus,

I am nearly done with the book, myself.

One one hand, I enjoyed it. As a modern 20/21st Century man (I write software for a living), although often a bit (to quote Ray Davies) of an Apeman, I do approach things in a logical manner. And as a logical person, several things bother me about the work, and I'll explain my thought process.

My first page publishing information reveals the book to be written by Michael Barrett and Shirley Harrison. Harrison is, of course, the 'hired gun' brought in to write the associated book. So our focus becomes the diary's owners, Michael and Ann Barrett.

One of the critical components of evidence is establishing a chain of custody. Evidence is generally not accepted if a chain of custody cannot be established. Enter our first problem.

When questioned about how it was that the document came to be in their custody, we are first told that the diary was a gift from a grateful but mysterious friend they met in a pub. When this did not satisfy, the story changed: it became a disguised delivery of an old family heirloom arranged by Ann to avoid inner-family conflict.

Finally, we are given two sworn affidavits by Michael Barrett outlining how he and Ann created the diary.

But if this wasn't enough, Barrett and his wife made one huge, glaring error: they relied on a mistake made by another Ripper author.

If you've never read this, now would be a good time:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mb-mc.html

The diary and book include the origins of the (now) famous Ripper poem:

"Eight little whores with no hope of heaven"

This is an oil & water type problem:the poem is a 20th Century work. It cannot exist in a 19th Century diary.

Here's the real issue:

It's one thing to make the claims a Patrica Cornwell makes against Walter Sickert. Peter Bower's work proves conclusively that Sickert, at very least, injected himself into the case by writing Ripper correspondence. Sickert himself, opened this door.

James Maybrick did no such thing. His inclusion is an obvious attempt to trade on the notoriety of the famous case against his wife. He is an innocent man who deserves better. Anyone who had a hand in this ought to be ashamed of themself.

Hi BTCG!

Well, this thread has moved on since I was last here! I'm sorry I couldn't join in with Soothsayer et al as complications over the weekend proved annoyingly constricting. Not that I would have been much use had I been here as, quite frankly - and I don't wish to sound rude or patronising when I say this - I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about BCTG. Your main points are mild conjecture at the best.

For starters, I am perfectly aware that Mr Barrett has signed sworn affidavits to the effect that he forged the diary along with Anne. But are you also aware of the equally numerous amount of times he has retracted his statement and said that he didn't forge it? These include the most up to date opinion we have from him that the diary is indeed a genuine document. Why is it that you seem to ignore these facts? I can assure you, two minutes in the company of Mr Barrett and I could quite convincingly put to bed any suggestion about whether he forged the diary. I await the opportunity.

Your point about the 'Eight little whores' poem has been dealt with more than amply by Soothsayer and others of the same ilk, so forgive me if I don't elaborate on it any further.

I do, however, agree that Walter Sickert sent letters to various recipients of the time. His handwriting sometimes crosses that of some of the letters that I am researching and so it can be quite difficult to distinguish between the two.

The main point is the fact that everyone of your arguments can be argued against to the point where they become superfluous. Thus proving that they are not definitive proof of anything.

I have studied the crimes of Jack the ripper for many years now, like my father before me. Indeed I came to the subject long before the diary came into the public domain. I have never been convinced that Jack the Ripper was some lunatic scrabbling around the gutter looking for food, or a mad doctor who killed woman for some equally inadequetly explained reason. I have always believed that Jack the Ripper was most likely to be a white, middle-aged gentleman with some form of grievance against woman. The Mary Kelly killing proves this. That was not the work of a simple murderer.

When the diary came along, everything felt write about the candidate. But, being a resonable man, I wanted to examine the arguments for and against, study the diary for myself, and then form my own opinions based on my research. So far, all that I have found has only proved to me that the diary is not a modern forgery and, whoever wrote it sent letters to the police (etc.) and would have needed to have had knowledge of the crimes that would have required them to have had access to information at the highest level. If someone were to prove me wrong, then fair enough - I am wrong. But so far nothing has been offered up to prove me or anyone else involved in the pro-diary research wrong.

I am simply trying to establish the provance of the diary through facts that people can observe with there own eyes. I have offered up a little of this and, in the near future, I hope to offer up a lot more. It seems to me that - and again I do not wish to sound rude - all the evidence for the diary NOT being genuine seems to rely on mere surmise or conjecture, or second hand accounts from people that say they have the facts, but for which no concrete evidence is ever offered up.



Kind regards,

Tempus