Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 60 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by DJA 1 hour and 29 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - by c.d. 2 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Graham 2 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - by Herlock Sholmes 3 hours ago.
Visual Media: London 1924 in colour - by Herlock Sholmes 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (8 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (7 posts)
Visual Media: London 1924 in colour - (6 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (6 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (5 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1001  
Old 11-18-2011, 03:42 AM
Magpie Magpie is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
'Apparently arsenic was believed to increase a gentleman's sexual potency. This could lead to an unfortunate psychological addiction -- a desperate
individual with strong feelings of inadequacy might be compelled to partake of the drug out of an obsessive need to improve his performance.
Hi Bridewell.

Well, Maybrick was a known hypochondriac with a habit of self medicating. Patent "medicines" of the day contained all manner of crap that would horrify a doctor today. It's possible that he was taking minute doses of arsenic without even being aware of it (at least in the beginning)

However it's not necessary to postulate a psychological addiction--arsenic is physically addictive, and the withdrawal symptoms are pretty horrendous.
__________________
“Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1002  
Old 11-18-2011, 07:20 AM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,841
Default no account

Hello Bridewell. Five? Umm, can't count that high.

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1003  
Old 11-18-2011, 09:56 AM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,329
Default

To Stewart

Thanks for that support and kind words of my previous post on this thread.

I'm sure you know this, but there is a terrific, very funny book about the faked Fuhrer scribbles by Robert Harris, which also became a brilliant mini-series about the whole knucklehead fiasco, with Jonathan Pryce, Tom Baker, Alan Bennett, and Alexie Sayle, among others.

Both are called: 'Selling Hitler'.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1004  
Old 11-18-2011, 11:31 AM
Steven Russell Steven Russell is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sheffield, UK.
Posts: 650
Default

I'm sure Mr. Cates is aware of this but a Welshman called Lynn Davies held the British long jump record for many years. Also there was a US rockabilly band in the 1950s called Lynn Pratt and his Rhythm Cats which is almost as good as Pat Cupp and his Flying Saucers.

Best wishes,
Steve.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1005  
Old 11-21-2011, 12:31 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,670
Default Having Reconsidered

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
Nothing seems to polarise opinion like the Maybrick Diary, but it's probably fair to say that there are only three possibilities in respect of this item. I'll call them the three masts, because most will nail their colours to one:

(1) The Diary was written by James Maybrick. (Therefore genuine)
(2) The Diary was not written by James Maybrick, but by someone else during his lifetime. (Therefore of the right era, but a forgery)
(3) The Diary was written sometime after the death of James Maybrick. (Therefore possibly not of the right era and also a forgery)

I think everyone will agree with one of those statements. The Romans, when confronted with a crime used to ask the question 'Qui bono?' (Who benefits?).

(3) "Forgery after death of Maybrick". This would have taken place at any time in the century or so after death, but Qui Bono?

The usual "benefit" from a forgery of this kind would be financial. Neither Barrett nor Devereux seems to have gained from the revelation of the artefact
Having done some digging over the past few days I now understand that the Barretts did make money out of the diary, at least initially.

It also occurs to me that the choice of a scrapbook was a strange one. Maybrick's intention - if he were the author - would surely be to show his own cleverness in outwitting the authorities, but also to preserve his own outward appearance as a prosperous businessman. So why choose a scrapbook?

James Maybrick would have had two clear advantages over a forger:

He would have had no difficulty in acquiring a nice 1888 or 1889 diary, or journal, in which to document his activities.
He would also be the one individual in history who would have no difficulty in producing a document in James Maybrick's handwriting.
The writer did neither of these two things, which Maybrick could so easily have done. Why would he claim authorship of a document and then make it look as if he didn't actually write it? There is only one logical conclusion in my view.

The logical conclusion, when we discern that a diary was not used, and the entries apparently not made in Maybrick's own handwriting, is that an 1888 diary was something which the writer could not easily get hold of, and Maybrick's handwriting was something which the writer could not easily reproduce - therefore not Maybrick.

In my view, the only sensible course of action is to treat the Maybrick Diary as what it appears to be, a forgery, until the contrary is proven (i.e. expect those who claim the diary to be genuine to prove their case, and to give the artefact no further attention until they have done so).

Qui Bono? Whoever forged it. (Sorry, Soothsayer!)
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1006  
Old 11-21-2011, 02:23 PM
Kaz Kaz is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
Having done some digging over the past few days I now understand that the Barretts did make money out of the diary, at least initially.

It also occurs to me that the choice of a scrapbook was a strange one. Maybrick's intention - if he were the author - would surely be to show his own cleverness in outwitting the authorities, but also to preserve his own outward appearance as a prosperous businessman. So why choose a scrapbook?

James Maybrick would have had two clear advantages over a forger:

He would have had no difficulty in acquiring a nice 1888 or 1889 diary, or journal, in which to document his activities.
He would also be the one individual in history who would have no difficulty in producing a document in James Maybrick's handwriting.
The writer did neither of these two things, which Maybrick could so easily have done. Why would he claim authorship of a document and then make it look as if he didn't actually write it? There is only one logical conclusion in my view.

The logical conclusion, when we discern that a diary was not used, and the entries apparently not made in Maybrick's own handwriting, is that an 1888 diary was something which the writer could not easily get hold of, and Maybrick's handwriting was something which the writer could not easily reproduce - therefore not Maybrick.

In my view, the only sensible course of action is to treat the Maybrick Diary as what it appears to be, a forgery, until the contrary is proven (i.e. expect those who claim the diary to be genuine to prove their case, and to give the artefact no further attention until they have done so).

Qui Bono? Whoever forged it. (Sorry, Soothsayer!)
Hi

I haven't read the diary for quite sometime, how much of Maybricks handwriting actually exists? Apart from the dubious will?

Is it not possible that maybrick was suffering with a Multiple personality disorder? Couldn't that explain any difference in writing?

The usage of a ripped up older book and not a nice shiny new one? what does a psychopath act like exactly? isn't that in keeping with someone not acting 'normal'?

Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1007  
Old 11-21-2011, 03:03 PM
Lechmere Lechmere is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,450
Default

A ‘scrap book’ with a load of pages torn out the front (probably because they contained information unrelated to Maybrick).
Different handwriting because he suffered from multiple personality disorder? A bit of a lame excuse that!

And he’s a psycho – so that’s why he used a scrap book (with pages torn out) instead of a small new journal?
That type of psycho killer usually acts ‘normally’ outside his killing activities though don’t they? Or was it because he was deranged and on mind bending drugs? Yet he was still ‘clever’ enough to evade the forces of law and order.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1008  
Old 11-21-2011, 03:25 PM
Premium Member
John Bennett John Bennett is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Enfield, Middlesex
Posts: 1,205
Default

One thing I noticed when rereading the 'diary' recently is that the author appears to concentrate on Abberline as his investigative 'nemesis'.

Looking in the press reports, I notice that Abberline is mentioned often, though often in tandem with other officers such as Reid, Nairn, Moore, Beck and Thick.

The question is: was Abberline's public profile big enough at the time to warrant him being the target of the diary author's mockery? Why not Warren, who would have seemed a more high-up (and thus well-known) scapegoat?

And has Abberline's profile really only been in the ascendent to the general public since the release of official files or even the 1980s Michael Caine TV programme (and later From Hell)?

I'd be interested to hear what people think about this...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1009  
Old 11-24-2011, 07:30 PM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
Apologies, Caz. My signature was not intended to apply to any particular post. I am certainly not suggesting that the view of others are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing', although inevitably there are some whose views I do not share. I just like it as a quote, but probably ought to change it to avoid ambiguity!
No apology required, Bridewell, and no ambiguity either. I was simply inspired by your sig when writing my own post. I knew you were not applying it to a particular post or poster.

I like it as a quote too, and have often used it in a 'diary' connection as it seems quite fitting.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1010  
Old 11-24-2011, 08:13 PM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
As an avid fan of the cryptic crossword, it always struck me that "Battlecrease" was such an improbable word that it might be an anagram. There must be many permutations, but, just for devilment I'll point out that one possibility is "Best Lacerate".

(That should take this post past the thousand mark!)
Hi again,

I believe I read somewhere that it was Florie Maybrick, not Jim, who came up with the name Battlecrease.

But 'just for devilment' could well have been our dodgy diarist's motive.

I always find it amusing to see someone (not you, I hasten to add), after another million words on the subject have been written, telling us that the handwriting doesn't match - as if they are the first person to make that observation. If it were that simple, the diary (and by association the watch - even with its 'Maybrick' resembling the genuine sig on Maybrick's wedding licence) would have gone the way of the Hitler diaries before you could say 'prison sentence'.

I'm wondering how it can be argued by Jonathan that the Maybrick hoaxer(s) learned from the Hitler fiasco and took pains to avoid the basic pitfalls, when Maybrick's will was available to researchers and forgers alike, to check what his handwriting looked like and make some kind of stab at copying it!

Another point was made by someone that Florie could not have divorced her husband in those days, but I think this is incorrect. If a husband deserted his wife or struck her in front of a witness, she could divorce him. Her rather open dalliance with Alf B may have been designed to provoke one of those responses from Jim, and he did indeed give her a black eye in front of a Battlecrease staff member after the Grand National. So it appears she had grounds for divorce and therefore no obvious motive to bump him off and risk the gallows instead.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.