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:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 50 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 1 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 1 hour and 8 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Spitfire 4 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Spitfire 4 hours ago.
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - by Mayerling 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (30 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (5 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (4 posts)
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (2 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
  #281  
Old 03-11-2018, 06:17 AM
DirectorDave DirectorDave is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Kingdom of Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
I'm reading the Ripper Diary book now so I will reserve judgement. I go in with an open mind. I would tend to think it was a forgery based on the things you detailed, but it is also hard for me to believe those in favor of its genuineness are totally without cause to think so?
Most of the discussions around the "Diary" seem to focus on it's supporters asking for conclusive proof that it is fake...that has went on so long that the argument for it being genuine has been lost in the fog.

I think the idea is we read the thing, ignore the handwriting and anachronisms and "Maybrick's words" are meant to convince us.

It's a Victorian book?, it's probably written with old ink? Beyond that I'm struggling to come up with anything for the "Genuine column".
__________________
My opinion is all I have to offer here,

Dave.

Smilies are canned laughter.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 03-12-2018, 03:56 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Not in my experience, Caz. I've heard quasi-Cockneys in the Darftord/Bexley areas use the expression, and Phil has already posted that link to Peter Sellers' impression of a London actor using it. "I seen" - with its relatives, "I done", "I says" and "I goes" - seems to be present in the everyday speech of people of predominantly working-class cultures all over Britain, London included.

"I seen" isn't peculiarly Scouse, though, and that's never been my point. I believe that one or more lower-class (and, frankly, none-to-bright) people wrote the diary, and its containing the phrase "the whore seen her master" is perfectly congruent with that hypothesis.
And there's another of my pet hates, Gareth - writing 'to' when it should be 'too'. Extremely common among the lower orders.

[Yes, I know, you were just typing too quickly or didn't check before submitting. ]

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:14 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
[Yes, I know, you were just typing too quickly or didn't check before submitting. ]
Quite so
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:15 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
I have read thru a few of these threads regarding the Maybrick diary. I am still trying to piece together some of the basic facts. Any help would be appreciated.

Am I correct in assuming that the majority of opinion of Ripperologists is that the diary was a fake? And that there is supporting evidence including a confession and an ad
searching for a diary (acquiring a Victorian diary)? And then of course many of the terms and colloquialisms are debated and dated here as we try to determine what era it likely came from.

What is the counter argument to this? Is there a particular, separate reason to believe the diary was real or is it simply a case of negating the criticisms of it (perhaps Mike the confessor had ulterior motives and was incapable of creating it anyway etc) . If all the evidence that points towards a fake is discredited then I could see one could argue for its at least possible authenticity as there would be no particular reason to assume it's fake.

However there does seem to be quite a bit of separate evidence it was faked or am I incorrect here? Can anyone offer a brief synopsis?

Am I also correct in inferring that the authors of the interesting Ripper Diary Book (I believe the poster Caz is 1 of them?) while somewhat impartial lean toward the authenticity of the diary? Would James Maybrick be a top suspect without the diary's existence?

Thanks, sorry for rambling post
Hi AS,

Welcome to the madhouse!

Yes, for my sins, I was one of the co-authors of Ripper Diary - The Inside Story, which was written to give a factual account of the first ten years since Mike Barrett introduced the diary to the world. It was never meant to include the authors' personal speculation about how, why and when the diary may have been created, or by whom - for starters we didn't think alike so it would have become a bit of a mess!

I hope the book doesn't read like the authors 'lean toward the authenticity' of the diary because neither Keith nor I think Maybrick wrote it. I didn't and don't accept that the evidence demonstrates it to be the work of either Mike Barrett or his ex wife, Anne Graham, or a joint effort, but we did try to include all the various claims and counter claims, opinions and conclusions of those at the centre of things from the start, and those who became involved along the way. The book was not about analysing the content of the diary for signs of fakery or authenticity - we let others do the talking on that score.

I hope that helps.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:52 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
It's highly unlikely that he'd have been mentioned in the same breath as the Ripper murders, if it hadn't been for the diary. Indeed, Liverpudlians and avid true crime enthusiasts apart, I doubt that many of us would even have heard about Maybrick in any capacity if the diary hadn't surfaced.
Hi Gareth,

But then there is the watch. There is no evidence that the diary had anything to do with Albert's decision to take his watch into work, where the markings inside were noticed by a colleague. There is also no evidence that Mike knew about the watch, or had ever met the Johnsons, when Albert contacted Robert Smith about his discovery. If the watch markings came first [which the forensic evidence would suggest], they presumably provided the inspiration for the diary.

Had the diary not been written, or had it been thrown in a skip or otherwise destroyed, and had the watch minus Mike Barrett come to light as it did, I don't think it would have been dismissed so lightly as a recent hoax and Maybrick would have entered the frame with a good deal more street cred and refused to budge.

The diary may have done the field a favour in that respect.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:57 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
Hello Gareth

Time to put this to bed once and for all.
The OED (Oxford English dictionary) describes the use of 'I seen .." as colloquial or dialectual.
The earliest example in the OED is in fact from Philidelphia in 1796.
An English example is in the 1861 follow up book to 'Tom Brown's Schooldays' called 'Tom Brown's Oxford'.

I think all can be agreed that this puts the proposed 'Liverpool only' dialect to bed.

(Cyril Waterman was..I believe..from North London and of Jewish decent)

That just about cans the problem tight..Don't you think?



Phil
Hi Phil,

Nobody said 'Liverpool only'.

So can we put that myth to bed please?

Thank you kindly.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 03-12-2018, 05:08 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Indeed, Liverpudlians and avid true crime enthusiasts apart, I doubt that many of us would even have heard about Maybrick in any capacity if the diary hadn't surfaced.
I agree, Gareth. When I was in lovely Liverpool only last month, I mentioned Maybrick and the diary, in connection with my interest in Jack the Ripper, on two occasions: once to a Liverpudlian pub landlord, and the following day over lunch with two family members of my better half, who have lived all their lives in the Wirral. I got nothing but blank looks, as they'd never heard of Maybrick or the diary.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 03-12-2018, 05:35 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,360
Default

Hi Caz,

the Maybrick Case was the subject of a 1970 BBC TV series called 'Wicked Women', which I remember quite well. As a result, I read a book about the Case, but can't remember which one! I'm surprised your Scouse friends had never heard of the case, but assume they must be of a generation of, er, more tender years compared with me.....

Re: the Watch. I haven't read the books for a long time, so if I'm wrong here then by all means correct me. As I understand it, the Watch was bought by Albert Johnson from the Murphys in mid-1992, but it wasn't until nearly a year later he saw the scratches. Mr Murphy said that he had bought the watch from his father-in-law Mr Stuart (?) about 2 years prior to selling it to Mr Johnson. Mr Stuart (?) as I recall said that he had had the Watch for maybe 15 years before selling it to his son-in-law. Could Mr Stuart (?) recall from whom he had obtained the Watch? Also, am I correct in believing that Barrett never mentioned the Watch at all until its existence was made public, and so can I assume that he didn't know about it?

I just wonder if the Watch had actually 'inspired' some previous owner to concoct the Diary, given that no-one thus far has been able to prove either the Battlecrease or Mike Barrett claimed provenances.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 03-12-2018, 03:43 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi AS,

Welcome to the madhouse!

Yes, for my sins, I was one of the co-authors of Ripper Diary - The Inside Story, which was written to give a factual account of the first ten years since Mike Barrett introduced the diary to the world. It was never meant to include the authors' personal speculation about how, why and when the diary may have been created, or by whom - for starters we didn't think alike so it would have become a bit of a mess!

I hope the book doesn't read like the authors 'lean toward the authenticity' of the diary because neither Keith nor I think Maybrick wrote it. I didn't and don't accept that the evidence demonstrates it to be the work of either Mike Barrett or his ex wife, Anne Graham, or a joint effort, but we did try to include all the various claims and counter claims, opinions and conclusions of those at the centre of things from the start, and those who became involved along the way. The book was not about analysing the content of the diary for signs of fakery or authenticity - we let others do the talking on that score.

I hope that helps.

Love,

Caz
X
Thank you Caz.

If I have things straight, you are saying that the book was supposed to be an impartial, entertaining history of the diary and not an attempt to pass judgement on its authenticity or lack thereof. And that opinion on the subject even varied among you and your co-authors.

However, if forced to give an opinion, your personal opinion is actually more towards a forgery.

But you don't think the drunk Mike Barrett who claimed to have forged it in the early 90s was the actual forger, while others here are certain of it.

How does the debate about colloquialisms fit in? Do you think there is a strong possibility it was forged by a contemporary in Victorian times?

Thanks, and let me know if I have summarized incorrectly at all.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 03-12-2018, 03:48 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirectorDave View Post
Most of the discussions around the "Diary" seem to focus on it's supporters asking for conclusive proof that it is fake...that has went on so long that the argument for it being genuine has been lost in the fog.

I think the idea is we read the thing, ignore the handwriting and anachronisms and "Maybrick's words" are meant to convince us.

It's a Victorian book?, it's probably written with old ink? Beyond that I'm struggling to come up with anything for the "Genuine column".
Thanks Dave, it does seem the diary is most likely fake. But I guess the question is if Mike Barrett was the forger?
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 09:50 AM.


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