'Michael is very cluever'

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Hi Tempus,

Why would anyone who was of the opinion that the diary was a forgery, waste time in trying to identify the forger? It doesn't matter to them, surely?.

Regards, Bridewell.

It's a mystery in and of itself. And the more one learns about Battlecrease and the Maybricks and their circle of "friends" the more one wants to know, irregardless of the JtR connection.

[Graham]

I read somewhere - and I can't remember where - that Trevor Christie published a hell of a lot less than he knew about the Maybricks, if that means anything. I think old Feldy raised a few eyebrows too, with his manic delving. There is much, much more to the Maybrick Case than meets the eye, never mind any supposed Ripper connection.

Graham

[Steven Russell]

Hi Tempus,

Why would anyone who was of the opinion that the diary was a forgery, waste time in trying to identify the forger? It doesn't matter to them, surely?.

Regards, Bridewell.

Personally, I think the diary is a forgery i.e. not written by JM but would love to know when and by whom it was written.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Let's see if I get this correct. You find one word that "looks funny" and think it a clue? The word is NOT misspelled, the first e in "clever" is tightly closed, usually a sign of writing very swiftly.

The first 'e' in clever is tightly closed(?). Which means that there are three e's in there then. Clever has only two, RavenDarkendale, and they are both accounted for.

Stick to your other arguments, Tempus. They are at least plausible whether one agrees with you or not. This is a stretch right up there with R. Wallace's Lewis Carroll anagrams.

This is not an argument, RavenDarkendale, it is merely an observation based not only on a convenient misspelling (which just so happens to spell the word 'clue), but also on the text that follows. Sorry, if you want me to just ignore things because you think they have no merit, you are going to be unlucky

Considering the overall tone of the diary, if the writer had wanted to draw attention to any particular passage, he would have written "Clue!" and drawn an arrow to the line. Remember this writer is an egomaniac, thinks himself more clever than anyone else.

Not true, Raven. As I said to miakaal4 previously, until you can understand the properties of a switching mind, you have no idea of the thought processes that are entertained within. Anything is possible on a given moment. This type of word play would fit in perfectly with the frame of mind of the diarist.

It's kind of like Zodiac. He states that one of his coded messages contains his identity. It probably does. Zodiac is that certain he is more clever than the investigators. Maybrick, or whomever wrote the diary has the same overinflated ego.

Of course he does! I am not denying that. But you seem to think that because of this he wouldn't have left clues like this. Wrong!


God Bless

Raven Darkendale

Kind regards,


Tempus

[RavenDarkendale]

Tempus

until you can understand the properties of a switching mind, you have no idea of the thought processes that are entertained within.


I'm bi-polar. If I don't know "the properties of a switching mind", it is for damn sure that few people on this forum do! Thought processes entertained in a divided or switching mind I live with every bloody day. An still I can reason better than many who think themselves beyond questioning.

RD

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Tempus

until you can understand the properties of a switching mind, you have no idea of the thought processes that are entertained within.


I'm bi-polar. If I don't know "the properties of a switching mind", it is for damn sure that few people on this forum do! Thought processes entertained in a divided or switching mind I live with every bloody day. An still I can reason better than many who think themselves beyond questioning.

RD

How did I guess you were going to say that, Raven?

You should, then, be able to realise that in mania or depression anything is possible, depending on the individual. The diary's many egotistical boasts, remorses and retractions of remorses are total consistent with a switching mind. In which case, a little word play is hardly out of the ordinary, is it?.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[miakaal4]

More to find out

Hi Graham, I too believe that there is more to the Maybrick saga than James and the diary. Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman both seemed to be of no doubt that some sort of in the background shenanigans was afoot.
There is the connection to the Masons, the Judge at Florence trial, and even I believe, royalty.
More to the point, Michael Maybrick was ransacking the house after James death, obviously searching for something. Was it the Diary or something else?
The sudden close interest in James during his last days, from Michael could be argued as brotherly love and worry. But he seem agitated, badgering the doctor, making unqualified statements, basically questioning their competance.
Was he wanting Florence and the kids out of the way, no matter what the cost?
So he could search on?
The sudden sale of the furniture and emptying of Battlecrease all increase the mystery.
A fascinating enigma to explore, and at the top sits the Diary, somehow, despite all the research and reading, I feel it has more to reveal than the most obvious.

[RavenDarkendale]

How did I guess you were going to say that, Raven?

You should, then, be able to realise that in mania or depression anything is possible, depending on the individual. The diary's many egotistical boasts, remorses and retractions of remorses are total consistent with a switching mind. In which case, a little word play is hardly out of the ordinary, is it?.


Kind regards,


Tempus

You didn't, unless you know me from somewhere. 99% of people never see my illness. I keep it buried.

Yes, I damn well do understand that anything is possible. I have seen first hand the way depression, mania,etc. has caused people to completely transform into something else. Anger strikes quickly, and remorse comes just as quickly. You have terrible thoughts and then you kick yourself for even daring to have them.

I don't at all discount wordplay, I'm saying that the author of the diary comes across as so egocentric that a subtle clue is unlikely. He absolutely crows that he left a clue in MJK's room for all to see but they never will because he is so clever.

Now consider this: It is a bit of am understatement to say he police were on the alert for Jack the Ripper. At any time the diary could have been discovered and delivered to the police. And yet the writer specifically mentions Battersea house. That is pure bravado. This would instantly send police looking for James Maybrick. Assuming you are correct, which I concede the possibility, that Maybrick wrote the diary, this is a classic example of a narcissistic personality, "I'm so good I tell you where I live and you'll miss it."

That was this writer's type of being clever. Another time he gives the name of the street where he is staying with equal boasting. I can see him coming down off the rush of mania and becoming depressed in his writings, when he moans about his wife's infidelity, when he mentions his failing health, even when he desperately needs a fix of his "medicine."

But I see nowhere the sly. subtle person who deliberately misspells a word as a clue.

You might say to me, "Raven, you sound like you are convinced the diary is genuine." I can only comment on what is there. I have always said it COULD be a forgery, not that it was CERTAINLY a forgery. Had this been found soon after the death of Maybrick and brought forward, I'd almost be convinced it was certainly genuine. The facts behind the discovery, the disagreements on the scientific tests, and the Maybrick will are cause for a reasonable doubt. More evidence would be a great help.

God bless

Raven Darkendale

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I read somewhere - and I can't remember where - that Trevor Christie published a hell of a lot less than he knew about the Maybricks, if that means anything.

There's the Trevor Cristie collection at the University of Wyoming's American Heritage Center that holds a tremendous amount of unpublished material. For just one example you'd have to access that collection to see any reference to Nurse Yapp calling Maybrick "Sir James".

I think old Feldy raised a few eyebrows too, with his manic delving. There is much, much more to the Maybrick Case than meets the eye, never mind any supposed Ripper connection. Graham

If one believes the Diary text to be melodramatic, well it's got nothing on the real life Maybrick family and their sordid little tragedy. Perhaps Sophocles, not Trevor Christie, should have written the story.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

You didn't, unless you know me from somewhere. 99% of people never see my illness. I keep it buried.

Actually, I did, but never mind that now.

Yes, I damn well do understand that anything is possible. I have seen first hand the way depression, mania,etc. has caused people to completely transform into something else. Anger strikes quickly, and remorse comes just as quickly. You have terrible thoughts and then you kick yourself for even daring to have them.

I don't at all discount wordplay, I'm saying that the author of the diary comes across as so egocentric that a subtle clue is unlikely. He absolutely crows that he left a clue in MJK's room for all to see but they never will because he is so clever.

But if Maybrick was the ripper, he would have had to have left subtle clues at the crime scenes anyway. That's what the Ripper actually did.

Maybrick does not crow about the FM he has left in MJKs room, you are reading it wrong. When writing that section he is merely saying it subtley and quietly to himself, RavenDarkendale. It is a private joke with himself that they will not find it.

Now consider this: It is a bit of am understatement to say he police were on the alert for Jack the Ripper. At any time the diary could have been discovered and delivered to the police. And yet the writer specifically mentions Battersea house. That is pure bravado. This would instantly send police looking for James Maybrick. Assuming you are correct, which I concede the possibility, that Maybrick wrote the diary, this is a classic example of a narcissistic personality, "I'm so good I tell you where I live and you'll miss it."

Maybrick mentions Battlecrease not because of bravado but because it is in is frustartions of the time. To suggest it is bravado is to suggest that Maybrick had control over what he was writting; that he thought about every word he wrote and decided in a moment of peak to tell everyone where he lived. You and I know that in mentall illness that is not always the case. We cannot always control what we do, say, or write. This is the case here. He is merely saying 'I may return to Battlecrease and take the unfaithful bitch'. His frustration, remember, is not just directed at Florence, or her many lovers, but also at the house in which he lives - 'A dark shadow lays over this house'.

That was this writer's type of being clever. Another time he gives the name of the street where he is staying with equal boasting. I can see him coming down off the rush of mania and becoming depressed in his writings, when he moans about his wife's infidelity, when he mentions his failing health, even when he desperately needs a fix of his "medicine."

I'm not sure at what point he gives the name of the street where he is living (?). I am aware of a (now missing) letter - that has been attributed to the diarist - where the writter gives an address of Prince William Street. Maybe that is what you are thinking of. I could be wrong.

I agree with you about your other points here, though. As they say, it takes one to know one; and that is why I believe any forger would have had to have shared the same traits as the diarist.

But I see nowhere the sly. subtle person who deliberately misspells a word as a clue.

I'm sorry, I do. We will have to disagree on that one. Besides, if it is a forgery, then there's no saying that a forger wouldn't attempt something like that.

You might say to me, "Raven, you sound like you are convinced the diary is genuine." I can only comment on what is there. I have always said it COULD be a forgery, not that it was CERTAINLY a forgery. Had this been found soon after the death of Maybrick and brought forward, I'd almost be convinced it was certainly genuine. The facts behind the discovery, the disagreements on the scientific tests, and the Maybrick will are cause for a reasonable doubt. More evidence would be a great help.

And I shall try and provide that for you, Raven.

God bless

Raven Darkendale

Kind regards,


Tempus

[RavenDarkendale]

I think that by now any rationalization I could offer would simply be flogging a deceased equine.

Maybrick and the diary as far as I am concerned remain and probably always will, a verdict of "unproven"

Tenebris et tempus extermina omnes

[quasar]

If I could make a belated comment on this point.If you annalyse each single letter of the running writing, it 100% does actually say CLUEVER. The last 3 letters are a bit lazy.But you cant challange the CLUE part. I would suggest that this is not getting the attention it deserves as to what it most probably points to.

Most probable: A forger wrote this diary to wind up Barret. He used this as proof for insurance if he wanted to.
Or: Michael Barret wrote the diary and was speaking of himself when saying he personally is cluever.He sold the thing for a dollar, so there is no doubt residing in his mind it is forged. Q.