Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ripper Diary: Old Hoax Theories

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

  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
    All of our theories are dependent on one simple fact that the diary and watch have been tested properly.
    But the start of the thread asks us to assume that it is an old hoax, I am not persuaded on that yet, but am still open.

    Leave a comment:


  • pinkmoon
    replied
    All of our theories are dependent on one simple fact that the diary and watch have been tested properly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Livia
    replied
    Battlecrease was stripped of everything that wasn't
    nailed down, including the children's toys.

    Unfortunately, this copy of the ad from the 9th July 1889
    Liverpool Mercury is not very clear, but clear enough so
    that you can "Watches" listed among the jewelry. One
    watch is described as counterspring, gold, keyless,
    monogrammed, open dial watch.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Purkis View Post
    Sorry, should have been more specific! Michael the brother. Very interesting character.
    And if written as a work of fiction, planning to publish it or not [it may have just been to excise some demons] a man with his creative flair isn't out of the question.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by MayBea View Post
    Are we forgetting something?

    The watch! Any old hoax theory has to include the watch, doesn't it?

    The Diary and the watch would have to have been created at the same time. How did they get separated?

    Was the watch pawned or sold and the Diary kept? Were there two discoverers?
    Was there anyone who lived in the house, so may have left the diary behind inadvertently or not.

    Who had connections with the family and crime, so may have had knowledge.

    Who got into financial difficulties, and may have had to sell the watch, or even lost it in a bankruptcy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Purkis
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post
    Michael the brother?

    Or Michael Barrett?

    One I suspect, the other I don't think I do.
    Sorry, should have been more specific! Michael the brother. Very interesting character.

    Leave a comment:


  • MayBea
    replied
    Are we forgetting something?

    The watch! Any old hoax theory has to include the watch, doesn't it?

    The Diary and the watch would have to have been created at the same time. How did they get separated?

    Was the watch pawned or sold and the Diary kept? Were there two discoverers?

    Leave a comment:


  • Livia
    replied
    None that I know of, other than the "journalist"
    who wrote it. I doubt they were paid enough to
    be able to afford to live there.

    There was a "mysterious death" in Manchester,
    although the timing is off. But if the diary was
    written by recall at some later date, that could
    explain why this incident doesn't fit. An Elizabeth
    Ellison and her boyfriend (Evans) went to see the
    Queen's Jubilee Exhibition (November 1887) and
    then stopped off at a hotel bar for a drink. She went
    outside to wait for him, but was missing when he
    went to meet her. She was found in the Old Trafford
    Canal a day or two later with post-mortem mutilations
    to her body.

    The first pathologist said she was strangled, the
    second said she wasn't. Evans was arrested,
    but released due to lack of evidence.

    There was an Ellison who married into the Maybrick
    family and one of them gave all their children the
    middle name "Maybrick" in the hope of financial gain.
    This is mentioned in Feldman. But this Elizabeth Ellison
    was from Warrington, not Liverpool and I never found a
    link between the families, although I didn't look too hard
    because of the date discrepancy.

    Leave a comment:


  • pinkmoon
    replied
    Can we link a journalist to battlecrease?

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Livia View Post
    Me too, Caz. I'm hoping Keith's information will be
    released in Bruce Robinson's book "They all Love Jack",
    coming this September.

    Battlecrease was empty from about the last week in May
    to early November when the Fletcher Rogers family took
    over the lease. He died soon after, but the family stayed
    in the house for a few years. Then an insurance agent
    Frederick Loftus and his family lived there and after they
    left, Francis Warre Rathbone (son of a wealthy merchant
    family) took it over for a few years. Then in about 1921,
    Alan Rumohr Hughes took over the house and lived there
    for about 20 years.

    Hughes is interesting. He was the nephew (by marriage)
    of Constance Martha (Janion) Hughes, sister of Mrs Matilda
    (Janion) Briggs. If you recall, these two women were there
    when Jim died and participated in the search of the house and
    later testified at Florence's trial.

    And then there's Douglas Quintin Steel and his wife, who
    lived in the other half of Battlecrease. Steel and his brother
    Allan Gibson Steel represented the Maybrick brothers at
    Florence's trial and later during the litigation brought by
    Florence's lawyer, Richard S Cleaver to claim Jim's insurance
    payout. In the early 1890s, Steel claimed bankruptcy with
    debts of over £17K. It was rumored that Florence had had
    an affair with his brother, Arthur Jackson Steel, an immensely
    wealthy ship owner and one of five Steel brothers. Allan Gibson
    Steel left Liverpool for London and became a QC. He was also
    a cricket star who wrote books on the subject and played in the
    first match against Australia, the famous "Ashes" tournament.
    Thanks for that I'll have to digest it, there are a few potentials there to have planted it [if it was indeed planted].

    Leave a comment:


  • Livia
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    But then how did it arrive in Battlecrease? You don't need to trust me that it did; I have Keith Skinner with me on this one.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Me too, Caz. I'm hoping Keith's information will be
    released in Bruce Robinson's book "They all Love Jack",
    coming this September.

    Battlecrease was empty from about the last week in May
    to early November when the Fletcher Rogers family took
    over the lease. He died soon after, but the family stayed
    in the house for a few years. Then an insurance agent
    Frederick Loftus and his family lived there and after they
    left, Francis Warre Rathbone (son of a wealthy merchant
    family) took it over for a few years. Then in about 1921,
    Alan Rumohr Hughes took over the house and lived there
    for about 20 years.

    Hughes is interesting. He was the nephew (by marriage)
    of Constance Martha (Janion) Hughes, sister of Mrs Matilda
    (Janion) Briggs. If you recall, these two women were there
    when Jim died and participated in the search of the house and
    later testified at Florence's trial.

    And then there's Douglas Quintin Steel and his wife, who
    lived in the other half of Battlecrease. Steel and his brother
    Allan Gibson Steel represented the Maybrick brothers at
    Florence's trial and later during the litigation brought by
    Florence's lawyer, Richard S Cleaver to claim Jim's insurance
    payout. In the early 1890s, Steel claimed bankruptcy with
    debts of over £17K. It was rumored that Florence had had
    an affair with his brother, Arthur Jackson Steel, an immensely
    wealthy ship owner and one of five Steel brothers. Allan Gibson
    Steel left Liverpool for London and became a QC. He was also
    a cricket star who wrote books on the subject and played in the
    first match against Australia, the famous "Ashes" tournament.

    Leave a comment:


  • pinkmoon
    replied
    It's one thing placing it in battlecrease but for that to work it would have to be placed at a time and a place where it could be discoverd which then destroys the old hoax theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • pinkmoon
    replied
    [QUOTE=caz;338787]Ooh you're all on the ball today.

    If patience is a virtue, pinkster, I must be as virtuous as anyone in this.

    Time - as Jim's motto went - reveals all.

    In this case it might only reveal that the bloody thing was indeed in Battlecrease. Even if this was generally accepted, it would only create more questions. I very much doubt we will ever know who actually penned it - unless someone somewhere finds matching handwriting. And it wouldn't be of late 20th century origin.

    Love,

    Caz
    X[/Q
    It would be a disaster if Mr Barrett was to snuff it before we found out the truth.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
    Morning my dear,any chance of Mr Skinner revealing his new information to us is there a book in the pipeline?xxxxxx.
    Ooh you're all on the ball today.

    If patience is a virtue, pinkster, I must be as virtuous as anyone in this.

    Time - as Jim's motto went - reveals all.

    In this case it might only reveal that the bloody thing was indeed in Battlecrease. Even if this were generally accepted, it would only create more questions. I very much doubt we will ever know who actually penned it - unless someone somewhere finds matching handwriting. And it wouldn't be of late 20th century origin.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 04-30-2015, 03:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Blimey, that was quick!

    I would think lots of people had access to Battlecrease in the aftermath of Jim's death and Florie's arrest.

    Later on I seem to recall the jury foreman lived there? Also it became quite a tourist attraction.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    G'day Caz

    I only heard about the juror recently and that's an interesting angle, that I could speculate on all day, but I suspect that's all it would be speculation.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X