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

[Graham]

For what it's worth (not much, really) I have never been convinced either that Maybrick was the Ripper or that he wrote the Diary. I am not totally sure, though, that if it's a hoax then it must be a modern hoax; however, apart from the claimed anachronisms, the prose, such as it is, does smack of someone at a time rather later than 1889 trying to write how he might imagine a Victorian gentleman would write. The result I feel is rather clumsy.

A major problem we have is that by far the majority of stated opinions (including mine) concerning the Diary are very subjective, and are just opinions (sometimes very strongly held) rather than proven facts. The waters are, I think, now far too muddied for any clarification of the Diary's authenticity or otherwise.

Graham

[Observer]

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.

Indeed. I wonder what the learned gentlemen in question would make of the mind of the scriptwriter who was responsible for "The Evil Dead"?

[Observer]

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.

Hold on there. Are you suggesting that the "fact" that Maybrick liked to refer to himself as "Sir Jim", and that Gladys was constantly ill only appears in Christies's notes? Those "facts" did not appear in "Etched In Arsenic"?

[StevenOwl]

Hold on there. Are you suggesting that the "fact" that Maybrick liked to refer to himself as "Sir Jim", and that Gladys was constantly ill only appears in Christies's notes? Those "facts" did not appear in "Etched In Arsenic"?

I am. Well, Robert Smith is to be exact. Christie's archive is in Wyoming, and according to the new book it hadn't been accessed prior to Keith Skinner's visit there in June 1993. To quote Robert Smith;

Neither "Sir Jim" nor "Sir James" appear anywhere in Etched in Arsenic, nor any other publication or record.

And yet the author of the Diary uses "Sir Jim" no less than thirty-three times. Strange, huh?

[Observer]

Where did Christie get the information from?

[StevenOwl]

Where did Christie get the information from?

From private correspondence with Florence Aunspaugh (then 80 years of age), daughter of Maybrick's close friend and business associate John Aunspaugh. Florence stayed at Battlecrease in the summer of 1888, aged 8.

[caz]

I'm 113. I wonder who is number 1?

Come on Caz, own up

I'm not a number. I'm a free man.

Sorry, I got a bit carried away there.

Love,

Number 7
X

[Observer]

So an eight year old child remembers Maybrick being reoffered to as "Sir Jim", and the fact that Gladys was constantly ill, and recounts those "facts" 72 years later?

[Abby Normal]

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

I'm assuming these little tidbits are in the diary?

How do we know that these are true about the Maybricks? What independently coorobarates this?

[StevenOwl]

So an eight year old child remembers Maybrick being reoffered to as "Sir Jim", and the fact that Gladys was constantly ill, and recounts those "facts" 72 years later?

Reference to Gladys being ill often was found in private letters written by Florence Maybrick, not from Florence A.

I cannot comment on the accuracy of Florence Aunspaugh's memory as an octogenerian as I never knew her, however in her letter to Christie she mentions that Alice Yapp "...didn't understand why Sir James had brought her (FA) to the house." To me, it seems thrown in there in a very matter of fact way, totally natural, like someone recalling a childhood memory perfectly naturally. If you want to dismiss it feel free, but I think it's one of the things in the Diary that makes the post-1987 hoax theory a real problem.

edit: For what it's worth, my mum is nearly 80 and she remembers a hell of a lot of minutiae about her days as an 8 year old with alarming clarity.

[StevenOwl]

I'm assuming these little tidbits are in the diary?

How do we know that these are true about the Maybricks? What independently coorobarates this?

Yes they are. And we know they're facts as Florence Aunspaugh (daughter of JM's friend and business associate James Aunspaugh) mentions that JM was called "Sir James" at home in private correspondence to Trevor Christie, and similarly Florence Maybrick mentions that Gladys was frequently unwell in private unpublished letters. So much for the Diary being concocted from 3 easily available books...

[Observer]

So we can discount the Gladys being "ill often" as a fly in the ointment for a modern hoax.

Sir James, not Sir Jim?

You know, I am told that the "Eight Little Whores" rhyme, and the counting rhyme in the Diary which like the "Eight Little Whores" rhyme mentions death, heaven, and whores, is pure coincidence. I suppose it would be a little bit remiss of me to mention that the references to Sir Jim in the Diary, and the fact that Florence Aunspaugh's memory of Maybrick being called Sir Jim is coincidence too.

[Abby Normal]

Yes they are. And we know they're facts as Florence Aunspaugh (daughter of JM's friend and business associate James Aunspaugh) mentions that JM was called "Sir James" at home in private correspondence to Trevor Christie, and similarly Florence Maybrick mentions that Gladys was frequently unwell in private unpublished letters. So much for the Diary being concocted from 3 easily available books...

Ok thanks. So somehow Barrett found out about these things.

For those that think he was too stupid or drunk to write the diary... how do we know this guys wasn't interested in the ripper, or Maybrick, or Victorian history to begin with. How do we know if, perhaps because of all the press the centennial of the ripper murders in 88, he had intensified his interest and was digging deeper. IMHO I think it was 88 that spurred him to somehow start thinking about ways that he too could cash in.

And in general, people on the outside might look like they are not capable of something and yet you come to find out that, particularly in the arts, creativel, they are capable of amazing things. One of my favorite artists, characters, is Henry Darger, a borderline imbecile his entire life, known only for that, and when he died, when the landlord cleaned out his little room. It was packed full of the most amazing writings and artwork, which is admired to this day.

Appealingly simple, or stupid people are quite capable of the most amazing things.

To say Barrett wasn't capable of producing it is one of the weakest arguments I've seen. And how do we know he didn't have help from his wife?

[StevenOwl]

Sir James, not Sir Jim?

Florence A used "Sir James" when quoting Alice Yapp talking about JM. In all of Florence M's private letters she habitually refers to Maybrick as "Jim". Sounds about right to me. As you say, it might be a coincidence, and I'd probably agree if it appeared just once in the Diary.

[StevenOwl]

To say Barrett wasn't capable of producing it is one of the weakest arguments I've seen. And how do we know he didn't have help from his wife?

I never knew Mike, so my stance since 1992 has been to listen closely to those who did. Seems to me that everyone who knew Mike and who has expressed an opinion on his possible role as Diary forger have all said he simply wasn't capable. If you knew him well and you disagree with that then fair enough.