25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can hear the sound of Mr.O loading up the cannons

[David Orsam]

I can hear the sound of Mr.O loading up the cannons

You certainly can Mr S.

[HH Munro]

Having now read my copy of this book (number 48!), I'm going to toss my twopenn'orth into the mix, so potential spoilers ahead if you're still reading your copy...

As per the pre-release publicity, the book's big draw is the freshly published evidence, 'courtesy of Bruce Robinson and Keith Skinner' of the diary's provenance: the electricians' time sheet (printed on page 21 of the book) showing that the floorboards of James Maybrick's former bedroom at Battlecrease were taken up to install wiring on Monday 9th March 1992, the very same day that Mike Barrett phoned Rupert Crew Ltd to tell Doreen Montgomery (using a false name) that he had 'Jack the Ripper's Diary'. As the kids of today say, coincidence much?

*If* one believes that the diary is genuine, in that it dates from 1889 and was written by James Maybrick (and I have to say, I'm minded to think so), it is another step again of course to then believe that Maybrick was the Ripper. I can't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that there is more evidence within the text of the diary to suggest that the writer either had an uncanny knowledge of the Maybrick case (details buried in an unpublished letter in an American archive, for instance), or was actually Maybrick, than there is to suggest the writer was also the Ripper.

Robert Smith does not claim outright that Maybrick was the Ripper I notice... When it comes to details in the diary which a writer in 1888/9 could not have known unless they were actually the Ripper, we're back to 'tin match box empty', first published in Martin Fido's book in 1987. It's in the diary, so that means it's either genuine, or a modern fake. And if it's not a modern fake...

Bruce Robinson points out, in his book, that the only reporter at Eddowes' autopsy (Thomas Catling), and indeed the doctor who carried it out (Dr Gordon Brown), were both members of the same Masonic Lodge and club as Michael Maybrick, so this 'inside information' about the effects found with the body could have passed as gossip into the Maybrick family that way. Mind you, Robinson's candidate for the Ripper is of course Michael, not James, who he suggests 'forged' the diary to frame his brother... quite why it would then be put under the floorboards is something dear old Bruce, who seems to be a bit annoyed by the existence of the diary ("Personally, I couldn't give a toss whether it's real, fake or written in Sanskrit.") doesn't go into. And yet, he admits it was the diary that set off his own investigations into the case...

*If* Michael had heard about the tin match box at his lodge, and *if* he had told James, and *if* James was a drug-addled fantasist who hoovered up all the newspaper reports he could find about the Ripper and wrote a fevered 'diary' imagining he was the killer... then it all adds up. The diary is a genuine forgery, written by James Maybrick!

[Mike J. G.]

Entertaining the idea that Michael was the Ripper; why would he bother trying to incriminate anyone? There was and is no evidence to incriminate anyone, anyway.

If he did it with the intention to create trouble for James, then why bury it?

As far as I know, Battlecrease has been a set of flats for a number of years, how many people were living there in 1992 that would have access to the floorboards?

The building itself has been a curiosity for a good many years, I know Whittington-Egan was visiting there from the late 60's onward, for his own writings about the Maybrick's.

The talk of the building as a "murder house" had gone on long before any JtR talk emerged, and it's easy to see how the place would've attracted attention in the years following 1889, certainly when the other surrounding roads were built, including my own road to the right of Riversdale which never came to be til around the late 30's/early 40's, IIRC.

All of that being said, I'm sceptical of the entire "provenance" story to begin with. The fact the electricians drank in the same pub as Barrett is pretty odd.

[Henry Flower]

Can anyone tell me the earliest likely time for the floorboards coming up - or more importantly, what time of day the electricians couldve met MB in the public house - and what time the phonecall was made?

And is it still the case that the electricians are denying involvement, and what does the book say about that denial?

[Sam Flynn]

And is it still the case that the electricians are denying involvement, and what does the book say about that denial?

On p20 (opposite the reproduced time-sheets mentioned above), Robert Smith says, "Let me be clear. The electricians, who worked in Battlecrease House, all emphatically deny removing the diary or passing it to Barnett". There's nothing to say that they've changed their tune.

[Mike J. G.]

On p20 (opposite the reproduced time-sheets mentioned above), Robert Smith says, "Let me be clear. The electricians, who worked in Battlecrease House, all emphatically deny removing the diary or passing it to Barnett". There's nothing to say that they've changed their tune.

That just kind of solidifies my thoughts about the provenance being questionable.

The fact that the electricians didn't finish til late in the afternoon, I fail to see how they could've met Barrett, passed him the book, he read it, then got on the phone.

I thought they supposedly took the book to the university? That also raises questions, least of all because any correspondance from the university would have to be done during normal working hours, as it's not just a 24-hour center for inquiries.

So, the electricians finished work, took the diary to the university, then passed it to Barrett at the pub in Anfield, he read it, and made the phone call?

It doesn't really add up, tbh.

[Henry Flower]

That just kind of solidifies my thoughts about the provenance being questionable.

The fact that the electricians didn't finish til late in the afternoon, I fail to see how they could've met Barrett, passed him the book, he read it, then got on the phone.

I thought they supposedly took the book to the university? That also raises questions, least of all because any correspondance from the university would have to be done during normal working hours, as it's not just a 24-hour center for inquiries.

So, the electricians finished work, took the diary to the university, then passed it to Barrett at the pub in Anfield, he read it, and made the phone call?

It doesn't really add up, tbh.

Thank you Gareth, thank you Mike.

So Robert Smith has nothing to say to explain away or counter the electricians' denial of involvement? No rationale that might explain why the men who supposedly uncovered it might subsequently deny having found it and then passed it on to the man who claimed it was genuine, tried to interest a publisher seemingly within minutes of receiving the thing, then admitted having forged it, then denied having forged it?

Provenance doesn't get much better than that. And that is the big takeaway from this new volume? That's it?

[Yabs]

Even if it was 100% proved that the book came from Battlecrease, Barrett, as it has been shown, was actively seeking a Victorian diary.
Maybe he had to settle for a part used photograph album found at Battlecrease.
If a forgery, Maybrick as a suspect could have been an afterthought inspired by the books origin.
Had Barrett acquired another Victorian diary from a different owner maybe a different suspect would have been presented.

[Observer]

Mind you, Robinson's candidate for the Ripper is of course Michael, not James, who he suggests 'forged' the diary to frame his brother...

I knew they were going to try amd pin it on Michael Maybrick.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=427130#post427130

See post 498.

[Observer]

So, forgetting the notion that Michael Maybrick was the Ripper, we come now to an old contemporary hoaxer.

Again let's suppose that the culprit is Michael Maybrick, nudge nudge wink wink. How did he compile the necessary information pertaining to the Whitechapel atrocities to write the Diary? Are we to believe that he either kept, or sought out the newspaper reports in order to do this?

[Sam Flynn]

Again let's suppose that the culprit is Michael Maybrick, nudge nudge wink wink.

I doubt it was Michael Maybrick who, though a composer rather than a lyricist, I'd have expected to have had a better grasp of poetry and metre than is shown in the diary. What really surprised me about the diary is the sheer number of aborted attempts and constant reworking of the "funny little rhymes", a characteristic of the diary that comes across far more strongly in facsimile than it does in transcript form.

[Mike J. G.]

Attributing the murders to Michael, for me, is about as random and out of left-field as you can get.

It's like, you've already got a guy who is about as connected to the Ripper murders as much as literally any other living human in the 1880's, there's this highly dubious "link" to the murders via a highly dubious diary that reads like a general bit of nonsense Ripper fiction, the likes of which get peddled out by many an author, but that's not wild enough. Now we're just going to attribute it to his brother, another guy with even less connection, real or fake, to anything remotely Ripperish whatsoever. Might as well just blame James's neighbour, or Florence. Why not? The local Aigburth Milkman may be a decent suspect.

[Sam Flynn]

Why not? The local Aigburth Milkman may be a decent suspect.

Ernie the Ripper.

[Mike J. G.]

Ernie the Ripper.

Glass milk-bottle: empty.