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

[Graham]

According to Feldman (P149 paperback edition of The Final Chapter) when he contacted Liverpool University (he doesn't say which department he contacted) they confirmed that they recalled the visit of the two electricians but could not or would not confirm what it was they had brought with them to the University. However, much later (per The Inside Story) I understand that Feldman said he no longer thought that it was the Diary that had been abstracted from Battlecrease then taken to Liverpool University; more likely some old documents.

Another mooted Battlecrease Provenance is the tale apparently told by Billy Graham that a servant at Battlecrease had stolen it some time after Maybrick's death and gave it to his, Graham's, step-grandmother Elizabeth Formby who was a friend. This is the story that Anne Graham stuck to as it explained how the Diary was in her father's family, who eventually passed it on to her, and in turn she passed it to Devereux to give to Mike Barrett.

So which piece of fiction is favourite?

Graham

[007]

Ernie the Ripper.

And his evil sidekick coachman Bert.

[Mike J. G.]

According to Feldman (P149 paperback edition of The Final Chapter) when he contacted Liverpool University (he doesn't say which department he contacted) they confirmed that they recalled the visit of the two electricians but could not or would not confirm what it was they had brought with them to the University. However, much later (per The Inside Story) I understand that Feldman said he no longer thought that it was the Diary that had been abstracted from Battlecrease then taken to Liverpool University; more likely some old documents.

Another mooted Battlecrease Provenance is the tale apparently told by Billy Graham that a servant at Battlecrease had stolen it some time after Maybrick's death and gave it to his, Graham's, step-grandmother Elizabeth Formby who was a friend. This is the story that Anne Graham stuck to as it explained how the Diary was in her father's family, who eventually passed it on to her, and in turn she passed it to Devereux to give to Mike Barrett.

So which piece of fiction is favourite?

Graham

I'd be willing to bet that if they took anything to the university then it wasn't the "diary", if they indeed took anything at all.

I'd like to know who they specifically called and what department they got through to, as Liverpool Uni is a massive network of varying buildings and departments related to completely different things, it's not just like a "Giles from Buffy" library-center for inquiries about random old stuff, complete with a wise old professor.

The timeline is very questionable, and that usually means that the story is nonsensical.

[Mike J. G.]

I also find the idea that the university couldn't/wouldn't comment on what was brought in to be highly dubious. What possible reason could there be for any sensitivity? They're not the CIA, they're Liverpool university. Maybrick is deceased, and thus data-protection and the likes would not apply.

[Observer]

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.

I doubt it was anyone other than Mike Barrett.

Speaking of rhymes, I personally believe the "eight little whores rhyme " was the model for the rhyme which features in the Diary. Donald McCormick wrote that the rhyme in question was in the hands of Thomas Dutton who said it had been part of a letter that had been sent to the police. How would a contemporary hoaxer, have had access to this rhyme?

[Observer]

He was certainly a reader, and a bit of a character around the pubs in Anfield.

Odd that he'd be reading books with detailed chapters about the Maybrick's written by a well-known local author who had also written a book on Jack.

Also odd that those books contain enough relevant details to cram into a "diary".

Excerpts from The Fabulous National, pg.81 Liverpool Soundings, by Richard Whittington-Egan:

The year 1841 is noteworthy in that the race was won for the first time by a mare, the valiant "Charity." Since then, only a dozen other "remarkable ladies"
have finished first in this most arduous of races...

"Frigate" (1889)

It is interesting to recall in passing that it was in the year of "Frigate's" win that Mrs. Maybrick and her husband had a quarrel upon the Aintree course which was among the first causes of the murder for which she later stood trial and which became Liverpool's criminal cause celebre of 1889.


This chapter is interesting because much is made of these "rare details" mentioned in the diary, of which, the national winner for 1889 was included.

Odd that those details can be found in a book authored by a well-respected Liverpool writer, who we know was read by Barrett, who also wrote about Maybrick's murder, and also more notably, Jack the Ripper.

A coincidence too many?

Most certainly a coincidence too many. Another nail in the coffin.

[Observer]

Incidentally, what makes you think James Maybrick, cotton merchant, was upper middle class? I've no doubt he would have been thrilled with that observation of yours.

It matters not whether Maybrick was born with a silver spoon up his backside rather than in his mouth. The point being made was, the language used in the Diary was Mike Barrett's interpretation of how James Maybrick would have written it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate her but about the language in the diary. Dr David Forshaw, who was senior registrar at Maudsley Psychiatric Hospital, wrote a 50 page report which said 'on the balance of probabilities from a psychiatric perspective, it (the diary) is authentic,'

Also Dr David Canter, a former professor of Psychology at Liverpool University, said:
'It's more of a log of things significant to him and as such I would expect to find inconsistencies. It would be much more likely to be a forgery were it perfect and completely without flaws.
Robert Smith states: 'Professor Canter draws attention to the many abrupt non-sequiturs in the diary, such as sudden transitions during passages of graphic violence to casual mentions of Jame's children, brothers or best friend George Davison. Would a modern forger have possessed the necessary knowledge, insights and subtlety to create so credible a psychopathic personality?'

All I'm saying chaps, before anyone lobs rotten vegetables in my direction, is that do we really think that Mike Barrett could have written something convincing enough to illicit the opinions of the two expert professionals quoted above.

[Mike J. G.]

Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate her but about the language in the diary. Dr David Forshaw, who was senior registrar at Maudsley Psychiatric Hospital, wrote a 50 page report which said 'on the balance of probabilities from a psychiatric perspective, it (the diary) is authentic,'

Also Dr David Canter, a former professor of Psychology at Liverpool University, said:
'It's more of a log of things significant to him and as such I would expect to find inconsistencies. It would be much more likely to be a forgery were it perfect and completely without flaws.
Robert Smith states: 'Professor Canter draws attention to the many abrupt non-sequiturs in the diary, such as sudden transitions during passages of graphic violence to casual mentions of Jame's children, brothers or best friend George Davison. Would a modern forger have possessed the necessary knowledge, insights and subtlety to create so credible a psychopathic personality?'

All I'm saying chaps, before anyone lobs rotten vegetables in my direction, is that do we really think that Mike Barrett could have written something convincing enough to illicit the opinions of the two expert professionals quoted above.

I don't get why people take what supposed experts and scientists say, as though they're immune to human error.

From Nessie to Bigfoot, to Piltdown man, and many fantastical things in between, scientists can and have been fooled and have put their names to things that have since been found to be mere laughable pranks.

I don't get why a professor of psychology is any more of an expert on language than the next man. It's like those alien shows that show generic scientists as talking heads in order to add credibility, when in reality, they're probably getting up to the kind of science that adds colour to paint.

I'm not saying these men aren't credible, but that I wouldn't rush to their opinions as though they're gospel.

Nothing is without flaws, so I find the idea that a forgery would be without them an odd one indeed. I can name countless hoaxes that are full of red flags and errors. I can't think of a good reason why anyone should think that a hoax would be without errors, it's just one of those odd, vague and seemingly for-the-sake-of-it suggestions that I don't really know how to process. History is not on Canter's side in this case.

There is nothing in the diary that couldn't be thought up by your average and imaginative bloke with a few books at his disposal.

Time and time again, people are fooled by the quiet chap in the corner who wouldn't have enough knowledge to come up with such a thing, and yet it happens continually throughout history, yet nobody learns the lesson.

[c.d.]

Who was it that hired these electricians?

c.d.

[Mike J. G.]

Would a modern forger have possessed the necessary knowledge, insights and subtlety to create so credible a psychopathic personality?'

All I'm saying chaps, before anyone lobs rotten vegetables in my direction, is that do we really think that Mike Barrett could have written something convincing enough to illicit the opinions of the two expert professionals quoted above.

In short, yes. This is something that comes easily to people who write stories. There are people on this very site who pen Ripper fiction as a hobby.

All the diary is is Ripper fiction that managed to sucker a few punters in.

Who was it that hired these electricians?

c.d.

I'm not sure, but does the same guy own it now that did in '92? I know the flats were being refurbished in the mid-90's, maybe the works were to do with that?

[StevenOwl]

There is nothing in the diary that couldn't be thought up by your average and imaginative bloke with a few books at his disposal.

The fact that JM liked to be called "Sir Jim" in his own home? The fact that Gladys Maybrick was often unwell??

[Darryl Kenyon]

All this talk of psychology experts saying the diary is genuine is frankly rubbish. I suppose they could look at the Dear Boss letter and say who ever wrote that must be mentally unhinged - The next job I do I shall clip the lady's ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you. And the saucy Jack postcard - you'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow double event this time number one squealed a bit couldn't finish straight off. Yet we know they where almost certainly not written by the murderer.And that's the trouble, they are looking at the diary as if it is genuine, so he must be mad, whoever wrote this and probably the murderer.

[Graham]

The fact that JM liked to be called "Sir Jim" in his own home? The fact that Gladys Maybrick was often unwell??

But aren't both these facts included in Trevor Christie's research notes, kept I believe by an American university, for his book "Etched In Arsenic"?

Graham

[StevenOwl]

But aren't both these facts included in Trevor Christie's research notes, kept I believe by an American university, for his book "Etched In Arsenic"?

Graham

Indeed they are. Has anyone managed to track down the receipt for Mike Barrett's trans-atlantic plane ticket yet? I demand that it's published right here, right now, so we can put and end to all this nonsense once and for all...

edit: Or maybe Trevor Christie is our master forger? Surely more likely than old Bongo Barrett.