Diary to Ripper letter handwriting comparison

[Soothsayer]

Might as well debunk this one too:

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

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

Liv

And thus spake Zarathustra - another icon falls from the armoury of the Naysaying classes!

How many times has an ill-informed Naysayer thrown this little gem into the mixer and came up with 'hoax'? "The hoaxer got it wrong - Stephen Adams only wrote the music! That proves it's a fraud!" Well yell away ye infidels, for the journal ultimately never fails us. And why would it not? Surely - if it were written by James Maybrick, aka Jack the Apron - then of course it would be right. Logically follows! And the more it gets it right - despite the yelling of the Naysayers - the less the hoaxing argument can hold water. Livia - I can't knight you (we have strict rules on girls in our gang), but you are welcome to claim a Damehood from me any time you like. Just let me know which you'd like and it's yours!

How extraordinary that such a fact could be researched and demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt!

Sir Tempus o'Revelat and now Lady Livia of Somewhere-Yet-To-Be-Decided are smashing naysaying icons as though they were going out of fashion. Soon there will be no icons left, and - please please please - no Naysayers too!

Soothsayer
Darn Clever Chap and All That

[BTCG]

Why not exactly?

Although Einstein believed it possible, we cannot, as of yet, travel in time.

Even if we could, I heard and interesting quantum hypothesis recently: if we do ever achive it, it's entirely sound to believe that we can no further back than to our own creation. That rang a bell, with me. I believe he's most likely correct.

[BTCG]

And, if BTCG is right, a diary-killer presumably. BTCG, how sure are you that the poem does not pre-date the 20th century?

Regards, Bridewell.

Pretty sure.

And... there's pretty much the elephant in the room: if Maybrick wrote the poem, shouldn't the entire poem be in the diary?

[BTCG]

And thus spake Zarathustra - another icon falls from the armoury of the Naysaying classes!

How many times has an ill-informed Naysayer thrown this little gem into the mixer and came up with 'hoax'? "The hoaxer got it wrong - Stephen Adams only wrote the music! That proves it's a fraud!" Well yell away ye infidels, for the journal ultimately never fails us. And why would it not? Surely - if it were written by James Maybrick, aka Jack the Apron - then of course it would be right. Logically follows! And the more it gets it right - despite the yelling of the Naysayers - the less the hoaxing argument can hold water. Livia - I can't knight you (we have strict rules on girls in our gang), but you are welcome to claim a Damehood from me any time you like. Just let me know which you'd like and it's yours!

How extraordinary that such a fact could be researched and demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt!

Sir Tempus o'Revelat and now Lady Livia of Somewhere-Yet-To-Be-Decided are smashing naysaying icons as though they were going out of fashion. Soon there will be no icons left, and - please please please - no Naysayers too!

Soothsayer
Darn Clever Chap and All That

I think you're on to something.

People have always laughed at our state song "Maryland, My Maryland. The claim was it was written around 1869.

But if we apply your theory, it was truly written in 1824... thus disproving this.

I'll spread the word... Martin O'Malley is sure to knight you!

[Soothsayer]

Pretty sure.

And... there's pretty much the elephant in the room: if Maybrick wrote the poem, shouldn't the entire poem be in the diary?

There is no evidence that McCormick's poem was based on anything which went beforehand, nor even that it ever existed beforehand.

Your post seems to be saying that McCormick's poem was based upon something he read in James Maybrick's journal! I deduce this from the fact that you posed the question about why Maybrick didn't have the whole poem in the journal. Even if Maybrick wrote the whole poem, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not he wrote it in full in his Jack the Ripper journal.

A much more likely explanation to explain both James' and McCormick's 'whores' rhyme is that both were based upon a pre-existing rhyme about prostitutes - maybe the one quoted by McCormick or maybe some other.

Only research will tell us ...

[Soothsayer]

That rang a bell, with me. I believe he's most likely correct.

Oh dear, the tears are still spilling down my cheeks!

So - if you're, say, 20 - there can be two versions of you if you go back in time a year, but not if you go back twenty?

How would your metabolism know? How would the space-time continuum realise?

I imagine Time probably keeps a journal.

[Soothsayer]

I think you're on to something.

People have always laughed at our state song "Maryland, My Maryland. The claim was it was written around 1869.

But if we apply your theory, it was truly written in 1824... thus disproving this.

I'll spread the word... Martin O'Malley is sure to knight you!

Help!

[BTCG]

There is no evidence that McCormick's poem was based on anything which went beforehand, nor even that it ever existed beforehand.

Your post seems to be saying that McCormick's poem was based upon something he read in James Maybrick's journal! I deduce this from the fact that you posed the question about why Maybrick didn't have the whole poem in the journal. Even if Maybrick wrote the whole poem, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not he wrote it in full in his Jack the Ripper journal.

A much more likely explanation to explain both James' and McCormick's 'whores' rhyme is that both were based upon a pre-existing rhyme about prostitutes - maybe the one quoted by McCormick or maybe some other.

Sooth,

I don't wish to be mean to you, but you really ought to explore the meaning of my first post to you, as you truly cannot discern the phrase:

Distinction without a difference!

No one would debate the origins of the work. But it's apples vs. oranges as to Mr. Harris's point.

And you're obviously not alone.

Meaning no disrespect, here's my explanation. You people (I love saying that... say it down south here in the USA and people will reply "who you callin YOU people?") have dealt in supposition for so long that you see things entirely in those terms.

I'm a new generation of Ripper student: I come into it after something has been conclusively proven in the case (and sorry, but we must admit this much, as much as we may dislike Ms. Cornwell), and I think this mindset must change.

[Soothsayer]

Sooth,

I don't wish to be mean to you, but you really ought to explore the meaning of my first post to you, as you truly cannot discern the phrase:

Distinction without a difference!

No one would debate the origins of the work. But it's apples vs. oranges as to Mr. Harris's point.

And you're obviously not alone.

Meaning no disrespect, here's my explanation. You people (I love saying that... say it down south here in the USA and people will reply "who you callin YOU people?") have dealt in supposition for so long that you see things entirely in those terms.

I'm a new generation of Ripper student: I come into it after something has been conclusively proven in the case (and sorry, but we must admit this much, as much as we may dislike Ms. Cornwell), and I think this mindset must change.

Seriously, BTCG, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Can anyone help me out here?

[BTCG]

Seriously, BTCG, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Can anyone help me out here?

Let's move away from bits and fragments.

Riddle me this:

If Maybrick wrote it in its entirety, shouldn't the entirety be in the diary?

Is this much understood?

[Soothsayer]

Let's move away from bits and fragments.

Riddle me this:

If Maybrick wrote it in its entirety, shouldn't the entirety be in the diary?

Is this much understood?

Can I just refer you back to the answer I just gave to this very question?

Don't you read these posts before you reply to them?

[BTCG]

Can I just refer you back to the answer I just gave to this very question?

Don't you read these posts before you reply to them?

You just answered my question. You'll do nothing if it disproves your preconceived notion.

But whether Maybrick wrote only 1 line, 12, or 20, if he truly wrote them, they ought to appear verbatim in the diary.

[Soothsayer]

I'm a new generation of Ripper student: I come into it after something has been conclusively proven in the case (and sorry, but we must admit this much, as much as we may dislike Ms. Cornwell), and I think this mindset must change.

This coming from a guy who is "pretty sure" McCormick's poem could not pre-date the 20th century.

I tell you, son, your trolling has got a long way to go, but you're learning from the absolute master.

[Soothsayer]

You just answered my question. You'll do nothing if it disproves your preconceived notion.

But whether Maybrick wrote only 1 line, 12, or 20, if he truly wrote them, they ought to appear verbatim in the diary.

Pretty well nails the hoax, I think, BTCG.

[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/dissertation...ary/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