Who was the author of the 'Maybrick' diary? Some options.

[Iconoclast]

why its still being defended or argued that there is still some question about its origin is simply remarkable.

It's not complicated. The logic you and Bridewell employ is deeply flawed.

You can't dismiss the journal on the grounds that you more or less don't like the look of it.

[John G]

Then we have Billy Graham's extraordinary claim that the diary had been in his family for over a century, apparently pilfered from Battlecrease, but during that entire period nobody bothers to sell it or even read it.

Oh, and if that isn't extraordinary enough, he then claimed to be Florence Maybrick's grandson!

[Abby Normal]

It's not complicated. The logic you and Bridewell employ is deeply flawed.

You can't dismiss the journal on the grounds that you more or less don't like the look of it.

HI Icon

It's not complicated.

no. its not.

The logic you and Bridewell employ is deeply flawed.

see above

You can't dismiss the journal on the grounds that you more or less don't like the look of it

I dismiss it because all the evidence points to it being a modern forgery by MB and his wife.

you seem to embrace its authenticity on blind faith, however.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Well, perhaps on reflection, I should have used a more apt adjective than "strenuous". I don't know, maybe Mike's love of the melodramatic is becoming infectious!

Nonetheless, I think the advert was fairly specific in its requirements. For instance, the diary had to date from 1880-1890, and therefore not just simply a Victorian diary, which would have covered the period 1837-1901. Additionally, it had to have a minimum of 20 blank pages, which is consistent with someone planing a hoax (I'm not sure what else it's consistent with).

Why would Mike want to obtain an unused or partly used diary from the 1880s for purposes of a practical joke? In other words, exactly what practical joke was he intending to play?

Ah, I'm sorry, John, I didn't make myself clear. Mike claimed to be as sceptical as anyone else would be, on first being shown this old book signed "Jack the Ripper". Who would believe it in a million years? Was someone pulling his leg? Was Doreen going to say: "You've been had", as soon as she set eyes on it? Was there any way to find out how easily anyone in 1992 [not Mike, but this potential leg puller] could have found a diary from the right period - the 1880s - with enough blank pages to play such a prank? Yes there was. Mike enquired and found it was not so easy when he was sent a tiny example for the year 1891, which nobody could have used to pull his leg. Meanwhile, Doreen sounded genuinely interested so Mike took a punt and took his newly acquired Jack the Ripper diary to London, where everyone he saw reacted positively and didn't automatically think this was some kind of joke that had been played on Mike.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

I may be showing my age, but so far in this discussion nobody's mentioned Steve Powell!!!

Graham

[caz]

Then we have Billy Graham's extraordinary claim that the diary had been in his family for over a century, apparently pilfered from Battlecrease, but during that entire period nobody bothers to sell it or even read it.

Oh, and if that isn't extraordinary enough, he then claimed to be Florence Maybrick's grandson!

But how does this demonstrate that BG ever really knew when the diary was created or by whom? When his daughter claimed it had been in their family for years and she had first seen it in the late 1960s, he had to try and make sense of that somehow, short of accusing her of making it all up. He was elderly and died later that same year, so his memory may not have been good and he may have been struggling to recall anything that could be relevant.

Love,

Caz
X

[Hunter]

... Was there any way to find out how easily anyone in 1992 [not Mike, but this potential leg puller] could have found a diary from the right period - the 1880s - with enough blank pages to play such a prank? Yes there was. Mike enquired and found it was not so easy when he was sent a tiny example for the year 1891, which nobody could have used to pull his leg...

While an actual diary with the prerequisites mentioned would be difficult to procure, a photo album would be far less so. I have two from my own family from around the turn of the twentieth century and neither are complete. One has many more blank pages than used. In fact, I've seen few that were full.

Once the Kodak Brownie camera became available in the late nineteenth century, allowing good, cheap photography for the masses, these albums flourished in quantity.

[caz]

Indeed, Cris. But presumably Mike was not aware of this when he made his telephone enquiry [whether it was for forgery purposes or to check if his leg was being pulled], or would he not have asked for a more easily obtainable Victorian photo album in the first place?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Someone intending to hoax a Victorian diary would, presumably, try to obtain a contemporary diary first as last.

[Abby Normal]

Someone intending to hoax a Victorian diary would, presumably, try to obtain a contemporary diary first as last.

bingo.
and no Victorian diarist, authentic or a forger, is going to use a freaken photo album. its absurd.

[Sam Flynn]

no Victorian diarist, authentic or a forger, is going to use a freaken photo album. its absurd.

Indeed, Abby. Neither would anyone in the early decades of the 20th century when, I presume, diaries of an appropriate vintage would still have been more readily available than they would later become.

[ChrisGeorge]

Someone intending to hoax a Victorian diary would, presumably, try to obtain a contemporary diary first as last.

bingo.
and no Victorian diarist, authentic or a forger, is going to use a freaken photo album. its absurd.

Yes but the docmument is being called a "diary" as a way to label it as an entity. I am not sure that the writer ever says in the document that he (or she) was writing a diary. Rather the thing is, as we know, more a journal of thoughts, most of them jealous, petty, and bloody.

Best regards

Chris

[Abby Normal]

Yes but the docmument is being called a "diary" as a way to label it as an entity. I am not sure that the writer ever says in the document that he (or she) was writing a diary. Rather the thing is, as we know, more a journal of thoughts, most of them jealous, petty, and bloody.

Best regards

Chris

are you kidding? I cant tell if your being serious or joking.
please tell me your kidding.

[John Wheat]

bingo.
and no Victorian diarist, authentic or a forger, is going to use a freaken photo album. its absurd.

But a proven bullshiter and a so called stupid one might when fabricating a diary Abby.

[ChrisGeorge]

are you kidding? I cant tell if your being serious or joking.
please tell me your kidding.

Not kidding, Abby. I am being dead serious. When first published, in Shirley Harrison's The Diary of Jack the Ripper (1993) that designation was attached to the document but that's not really what the document is. So that designation is misleading. There is no reason why these thoughts should be written in a regular printed "diary" -- they could have been written anywhere.

Chris