Tweet
I very rarely read or post anything on these message boards. The main reason for my inactivity is that in the past, when I organised the Trial of James Maybrick event in Liverpool, I was the subject of some quite unpleasant and, in some case, totally untrue statements. I also found that too many of the people who contributed to the Maybrick debate had fixed opinions on the diary saga and were simply not prepared to listen to the views of the other camp. Despite my misgivings, I have decided to put my toe back in the water of the diary debate and venture a few opinions on the subject.
I think there are four (main) possible sources for the author of the diary. I remain open-minded about all four; however, I think the weight of evidence points to it being a forgery.
Firstly, it was written by James Maybrick, either because he actually was Jack the Ripper or because he was a fantasist. This viewpoint, though in my opinion unlikely, is too easily dismissed by some diary critics. After all, twenty-five years after its appearance, the diary has not definitely been proved to be a forgery. Also, some very prominent criminal psychologists have said that the diary text does indicate that its author was someone with a very tortured mind-set. Some circumstantial evidence has pointed at Maybrick being a credible candidate to be JtR, such as his knowledge and visits to London and his erratic behaviour at the time of the Ripper murders due to chronic drug abuse. On the other hand, there are clearly major problems with the diary being the genuine article. For example, why is not written in James’s own handwriting? He clearly wasn’t hiding his identity so there was no reason to disguise his handwriting. Could a sick and dying man really place the diary under the floorboards of his room without anyone hearing or discovering the fact? Very unlikely, if not impossible. There are mistakes and inaccuracies in the text of the diary and there is that crucial ‘tin match box empty’ quote. Those four striking words cannot be easily dismissed as some have sought to do.
Secondly, it was written by Michael Maybrick. This is a very unlikely view, but it has to be dealt with following the publication of Bruce Robinson’s brilliant, but deeply flawed book. He suggests that Michael wrote the diary to frame his brother. This of course, doesn’t explain why he didn’t write the diary in James’s handwriting or why he hid the diary if he wanted it to be discovered. The book also contains numerous factual errors in relation to the Maybrick story (which I have previously outlined in an article for the Whitechapel Society journal). These factual errors are so damning that I feel that this viewpoint has little credibility.
Thirdly, it is an old forgery. This viewpoint is rarely discussed but it ticks a lot of the question boxes. Interestingly, a few people closely connected with the Maybrick case, came to live at Battlecrease after the Maybricks moved out. For example, Fletcher Rogers, who was the chairman of the jury at the inquest into James Maybrick’s death. Such people would have known a lot of the personal details of the Maybricks’ lives, such as James Maybrick occasionally being referred to as Sir James. If the diary was written in the 1920s as one of the scientific tests suggested, there are other possible suspects for the author of the diary, at least one of whom lived in Battlecrease and had a probable dislike of the Maybricks. Someone living at the house could have also very easily placed a diary under the floorboards (if that actually happened).
Fourthly, it is a modern forgery. If this is the case, then Michael Barrett has to be involved in some capacity. Having spoken to Mike on several occasions and meeting him once in his house, I am totally convinced that if he was involved, he did not act alone. If the diary is a modern fake, it is not a crude one, but is a very clever one. Effort was made to intertwine two narratives, the Ripper and Maybrick stories. An authentic Victorian album was bought and care was taken to get ink that could be mistakenly identified as Victorian in origin. If it is a modern forgery, then a post-1987 date would appear likely as that would help explain the ‘tin match box, empty quote which I think is a highly significant line in the diary.
One final thought for you. Could the information in the diary about the Maybrick story and the Ripper killings be easily gleaned from modern or from old sources? The answer to that is, yes. I know that for a fact as I have completed that exercise. Try it yourself. I used just two pre-1988 books on the Ripper murders and one pre-1988 book on the Maybrick saga to rather easily and successfully recreate what the diary has to say about these two story-lines. The only line that caused me a problem was the ‘Sir Jim’ reference; however, that line fits in with the text that precedes it and could have easily been written by a clever forger. I used one old Maybrick book and one old Liverpool newspaper (from different dates) to again easily and successfully recreate what the diary has to say about the Maybricks and the Ripper murders. Again, I had a problem with just one line, this time it was the ‘tin match box empty’ reference. Let me give you just one example of my efforts:
Extract from the diary (page 60) – ‘Fuller believes that there is ‘very little the matter with me.’
Old Forgery (?) Extract from the J. H. Levy (1899) book (page 78) – [Dr Charles Fuller giving evidence at Florence’s trial] “The examination last over an hour…I told him there was very little the matter with him.”
Modern forgery – extract from the B. Ryan (1977) book (page 42) – ‘Michael recommended his doctor, Charles Fuller…he told the patient that he could find very little the matter wrong with him.’
So which of the four options listed above is my preferred selection. Well for those of you who are going to the event organised by Chris George in Baltimore this April, you will hear my considered choice and I will be expanding on my views in much more detail and providing evidence to justify my selection. For the moment, let me just say that while I am still exploring all four options, I do NOT think that the diary was written by James Maybrick. In an article I am currently working on, I have identified (so far) twenty-three reasons why James Maybrick was not the author of the diary, e.g. such as the handwriting issue I mentioned previously.
What option would you select and why?
I think there are four (main) possible sources for the author of the diary. I remain open-minded about all four; however, I think the weight of evidence points to it being a forgery.
Firstly, it was written by James Maybrick, either because he actually was Jack the Ripper or because he was a fantasist. This viewpoint, though in my opinion unlikely, is too easily dismissed by some diary critics. After all, twenty-five years after its appearance, the diary has not definitely been proved to be a forgery. Also, some very prominent criminal psychologists have said that the diary text does indicate that its author was someone with a very tortured mind-set. Some circumstantial evidence has pointed at Maybrick being a credible candidate to be JtR, such as his knowledge and visits to London and his erratic behaviour at the time of the Ripper murders due to chronic drug abuse. On the other hand, there are clearly major problems with the diary being the genuine article. For example, why is not written in James’s own handwriting? He clearly wasn’t hiding his identity so there was no reason to disguise his handwriting. Could a sick and dying man really place the diary under the floorboards of his room without anyone hearing or discovering the fact? Very unlikely, if not impossible. There are mistakes and inaccuracies in the text of the diary and there is that crucial ‘tin match box empty’ quote. Those four striking words cannot be easily dismissed as some have sought to do.
Secondly, it was written by Michael Maybrick. This is a very unlikely view, but it has to be dealt with following the publication of Bruce Robinson’s brilliant, but deeply flawed book. He suggests that Michael wrote the diary to frame his brother. This of course, doesn’t explain why he didn’t write the diary in James’s handwriting or why he hid the diary if he wanted it to be discovered. The book also contains numerous factual errors in relation to the Maybrick story (which I have previously outlined in an article for the Whitechapel Society journal). These factual errors are so damning that I feel that this viewpoint has little credibility.
Thirdly, it is an old forgery. This viewpoint is rarely discussed but it ticks a lot of the question boxes. Interestingly, a few people closely connected with the Maybrick case, came to live at Battlecrease after the Maybricks moved out. For example, Fletcher Rogers, who was the chairman of the jury at the inquest into James Maybrick’s death. Such people would have known a lot of the personal details of the Maybricks’ lives, such as James Maybrick occasionally being referred to as Sir James. If the diary was written in the 1920s as one of the scientific tests suggested, there are other possible suspects for the author of the diary, at least one of whom lived in Battlecrease and had a probable dislike of the Maybricks. Someone living at the house could have also very easily placed a diary under the floorboards (if that actually happened).
Fourthly, it is a modern forgery. If this is the case, then Michael Barrett has to be involved in some capacity. Having spoken to Mike on several occasions and meeting him once in his house, I am totally convinced that if he was involved, he did not act alone. If the diary is a modern fake, it is not a crude one, but is a very clever one. Effort was made to intertwine two narratives, the Ripper and Maybrick stories. An authentic Victorian album was bought and care was taken to get ink that could be mistakenly identified as Victorian in origin. If it is a modern forgery, then a post-1987 date would appear likely as that would help explain the ‘tin match box, empty quote which I think is a highly significant line in the diary.
One final thought for you. Could the information in the diary about the Maybrick story and the Ripper killings be easily gleaned from modern or from old sources? The answer to that is, yes. I know that for a fact as I have completed that exercise. Try it yourself. I used just two pre-1988 books on the Ripper murders and one pre-1988 book on the Maybrick saga to rather easily and successfully recreate what the diary has to say about these two story-lines. The only line that caused me a problem was the ‘Sir Jim’ reference; however, that line fits in with the text that precedes it and could have easily been written by a clever forger. I used one old Maybrick book and one old Liverpool newspaper (from different dates) to again easily and successfully recreate what the diary has to say about the Maybricks and the Ripper murders. Again, I had a problem with just one line, this time it was the ‘tin match box empty’ reference. Let me give you just one example of my efforts:
Extract from the diary (page 60) – ‘Fuller believes that there is ‘very little the matter with me.’
Old Forgery (?) Extract from the J. H. Levy (1899) book (page 78) – [Dr Charles Fuller giving evidence at Florence’s trial] “The examination last over an hour…I told him there was very little the matter with him.”
Modern forgery – extract from the B. Ryan (1977) book (page 42) – ‘Michael recommended his doctor, Charles Fuller…he told the patient that he could find very little the matter wrong with him.’
So which of the four options listed above is my preferred selection. Well for those of you who are going to the event organised by Chris George in Baltimore this April, you will hear my considered choice and I will be expanding on my views in much more detail and providing evidence to justify my selection. For the moment, let me just say that while I am still exploring all four options, I do NOT think that the diary was written by James Maybrick. In an article I am currently working on, I have identified (so far) twenty-three reasons why James Maybrick was not the author of the diary, e.g. such as the handwriting issue I mentioned previously.
What option would you select and why?
Comment