Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Pcdunn]

Intriguing...

Yes it's a forgery. Written between 1890 and 1895 by the actor George Grossmith with help from the Playwrite and Journalist Harry Jackson Wells Dam.

How did it get into the former Maybrick house, then?

Or was it located in a antique shop about a hundred years later, complete with old guard-book album?

Interested in learning more...

[Scott Nelson]

How did it get into the former Maybrick house, then?

I think George gave it to Michael (Maybrick) who put it under the floorboards.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes it's a forgery. Written between 1890 and 1895 by the actor George Grossmith with help from the Playwrite and Journalist Harry Jackson Wells Dam.

With a little help from a Time Lord who was familiar with mid/late 20th century word usages.

[Observer]

I think George gave it to Michael (Maybrick) who put it under the floorboards.

You should write a book about that, before someone else does

[Pcdunn]

Even more intriguing...

I think George gave it to Michael (Maybrick) who put it under the floorboards.

Thanks, Scott.

Okay, I've got a few questions:

What was the point of the Diary hoax, if
a) it is hidden away in the house?
b) the people it refers to are now (1890s) deceased? (Except for the children, I suppose)

Did the hoaxers simply mean to embarrass the Maybrick family?
Did they hide the hoaxed diary away IN ORDER to prevent the Maybrick children from being affected by their rude (yet creative) joke about James and Florence?
Why write the thing in the first place?

[rjpalmer]

Melvin was clearly hoping this would prove to be the case, with the ink giving itself away over the years, but it never did. It looks identical today to how it did when Robert Smith first saw it in June 1992. Mike Barrett never explained how this could have been achieved with ink applied in April 1992, so perhaps you could give it a go now.

Hi Caz. Probably not worth posting since our views are entrenched, but your premise is, of course, disputed. Melvin liked to point out--as did Keith Skinner and your own good self in Ripper Diary--that Dr. David Baxendale found no sign of bronzing in the Diary's ink in 1992.

Ripper Diary: The Inside Story, pg. 13, referring to Baxendale's report, 1 July 1992.

"He [Baxendale] noted that, unlike most later nineteenth century inks, which change to a brown color with age, this ink had not browned. He felt the free-flowing nature of the ink was also unusual for the period."

So far, so good.

And yet...three years, three months later, 1995, the chemist Alex Voller DID note signs of bronzing in certain sections.

The Diary of Jack the Ripper by Shirley Harrison (Blake, 1998) p. 371-372, quoting Voller on 30 October 1995:

'This is as I thought...it's barely visible...in one or two places there is some very slight bronzing....tilted to the light it can just be seen...'the children they distract me so I ripped OPEN'....the bronzing is in the last word...There is some more visible on the word's 'building up.'

Voller (who hadn't seen the Diary in 1992) suggested that this was evidence of age. But Melvin, on the other hand, concluded that this was actually proof that the Diary DID exhibit some subtle color change in the three years since it first went public. His experiments with Nick Warren confirmed that Diamine ink bronzes in as little as two years.

I would recommend re-checking the section described by Voller if you ever get a chance and confirm/disprove whether they have changed appearance since 1995. Have a good New Year.

[caz]

Considering the diary is a forgery she's wasted a lot of time.

A lot of people have wasted an awful lot of time on a forgery they believe to be the work of Mike Barrett.

I don't consider the diary a waste of my time because I remain interested in who may have written it, when and why - the ripper be buggered.

Why does every mystery have to be about him?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes it's a forgery. Written between 1890 and 1895 by the actor George Grossmith with help from the Playwrite and Journalist Harry Jackson Wells Dam.

How did it get into the former Maybrick house, then?

Or was it located in a antique shop about a hundred years later, complete with old guard-book album?

Interested in learning more...

Hi Pcdunn,

Interestingly, George Grossmith did spend his honeymoon in Aigburth, so he'd have known the territory at least.

Mind you, I can't think of anything less likely than Michael Maybrick willingly taking such a diary from GG and planting it in Battlecrease. I imagine he'd have been horrified and totally humiliated by the additional negative publicity, had the thing come to light and been pored over during his lifetime. The Isle of Wight wouldn't have been nearly far enough away for him.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thanks, Scott.

Okay, I've got a few questions:

What was the point of the Diary hoax, if
a) it is hidden away in the house?
b) the people it refers to are now (1890s) deceased? (Except for the children, I suppose)

Did the hoaxers simply mean to embarrass the Maybrick family?
Did they hide the hoaxed diary away IN ORDER to prevent the Maybrick children from being affected by their rude (yet creative) joke about James and Florence?
Why write the thing in the first place?

It was presumably thought likely, if not inevitable, by whoever hid their creation under those floorboards, that they would one day be lifted again for whatever reason and reveal all. That proved correct - eventually.

Colin Rhodes, of Portus & Rhodes, was present when some other floorboards in some other house were lifted, to reveal a large sweetie jar crammed full of five pound notes. The lady of the house was alerted and expressed her delight that the money her late husband had supposedly left somewhere in the house had at last turned up. He never told her where he kept it, but presumably he didn't intend it to lie there forever.

The Maybrick Case was a big thing - Florie was only released from prison when Queen Victoria had popped her clogs and the scandalous tales of the Maybricks endured way beyond the 1890s. Middle class Victorians loved their funny little games and hoaxes, their parodies, burlesques and practical joaxes. But this one would have been considered a trifle 'unfit' for public consumption at the time, unlike the penny dreadfuls of the day, so the diary, written in the worst possible taste, was put away in the best possible place, for someone else to discover and do something with.

All very much IMHO, naturally.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz. Probably not worth posting since our views are entrenched, but your premise is, of course, disputed. Melvin liked to point out--as did Keith Skinner and your own good self in Ripper Diary--that Dr. David Baxendale found no sign of bronzing in the Diary's ink in 1992.

Ripper Diary: The Inside Story, pg. 13, referring to Baxendale's report, 1 July 1992.

"He [Baxendale] noted that, unlike most later nineteenth century inks, which change to a brown color with age, this ink had not browned. He felt the free-flowing nature of the ink was also unusual for the period."

So far, so good.

And yet...three years, three months later, 1995, the chemist Alex Voller DID note signs of bronzing in certain sections.

The Diary of Jack the Ripper by Shirley Harrison (Blake, 1998) p. 371-372, quoting Voller on 30 October 1995:

'This is as I thought...it's barely visible...in one or two places there is some very slight bronzing....tilted to the light it can just be seen...'the children they distract me so I ripped OPEN'....the bronzing is in the last word...There is some more visible on the word's 'building up.'

Voller (who hadn't seen the Diary in 1992) suggested that this was evidence of age. But Melvin, on the other hand, concluded that this was actually proof that the Diary DID exhibit some subtle color change in the three years since it first went public. His experiments with Nick Warren confirmed that Diamine ink bronzes in as little as two years.

I would recommend re-checking the section described by Voller if you ever get a chance and confirm/disprove whether they have changed appearance since 1995. Have a good New Year.

Hi rj,

Unless you have evidence that Baxendale visually examined the entire 63 pages of writing for the least signs of bronzing, and found none at all throughout, I fear the argument cannot be taken any further. Robert Smith would testify to the fact that the 'very slight', 'barely visible' bronzing in 'one or two places', as observed by Voller in 1995, was already there when he first examined it in 1992 and had not increased by 1995, or increased since then, remaining the same 'very slight' bronzing today.

The ink never did 'change to a brown colour', but then there are plenty of surviving examples of late nineteenth century documents handwritten in ink that has not browned. I have a scrapbook of my own, picked up in a charity shop a few years ago, which dates back to the mid nineteenth century and contains recipes and remedies handwritten by different individuals using a variety of inks in all shades of black, grey, blue and brown, and no one colour dominates.

Melvin's little experiments with Nick Warren backfired, because Diamine ink didn't behave as he expected [hoped?] the diary ink had, or would over time, and they are clearly not one and the same.

There is also the little matter of the irregular fading observed by Voller, which he said is characteristic of permanent manuscript inks 'of some considerable age', while a modern ink would produce a regular fade-out.

I don't recall Baxendale noticing any fading either, or commenting on its potential significance, but I assume as you didn't mention it yourself you are not suggesting there was no such fading to see in 1992?

Have a good New Year yourself, rj.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

A lot of people have wasted an awful lot of time on a forgery they believe to be the work of Mike Barrett.

I don't consider the diary a waste of my time because I remain interested in who may have written it, when and why - the ripper be buggered.

Why does every mystery have to be about him?

Love,

Caz
X

But it was clearly written by Mike Barrett or someone close to him. Where's the mystery?

[Michael W Richards]

A lot of people have wasted an awful lot of time on a forgery they believe to be the work of Mike Barrett.

I don't consider the diary a waste of my time because I remain interested in who may have written it, when and why - the ripper be buggered.

Why does every mystery have to be about him?
Love,

Caz
X

They don't have to be Caz, its just that this entire site is preoccupied with "him/they/her." This is really a general discussion topic on those grounds.

Anyway, Happy New Years Ms Caz.:

[Pcdunn]

The Maybrick family name

Hi Pcdunn,

Interestingly, George Grossmith did spend his honeymoon in Aigburth, so he'd have known the territory at least.

Mind you, I can't think of anything less likely than Michael Maybrick willingly taking such a diary from GG and planting it in Battlecrease. I imagine he'd have been horrified and totally humiliated by the additional negative publicity, had the thing come to light and been pored over during his lifetime. The Isle of Wight wouldn't have been nearly far enough away for him.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello, Caz, I hope your holidays are going well (I have been sitting at home recovering from surgery I had a few weeks ago, so ours have been very quiet indeed).

This thing about hoaxing a diary to pin the most notorious crimes of Victoria's reign on a particular person is far-fetched enough, but perhaps barely plausible if we suppose an employee or servant at Battlecrease penned the thing as act of private revenge, then panicked and hid it in a biscuit tin under the floorboards (in the master's bedroom, no less-- there goes that shred of plausibility).

BUT to say the Diary was hoaxed by a member of the family, be it as primary author or only as a collaborator-- no, I don't see that at all. The Maybrick name had already taken enough blows, and there were children involved, too.

[caz]

But it was clearly written by Mike Barrett or someone close to him. Where's the mystery?

The mystery, John, is why anyone still believes that to have been the case, when there is no evidence that Mike would have been capable, and no evidence that anyone close to him would have been capable and willing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

The mystery, John, is why anyone still believes that to have been the case, when there is no evidence that Mike would have been capable, and no evidence that anyone close to him would have been capable and willing.

Love,

Caz
X

then why on gods green earth would he take out a sworn affidavit that he wrote it?