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

[Abby Normal]

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

the author is claiming he wants this document to be found. hes writing at least partly for posterity. the author is claiming to be james maybrick. neither james maybrick nor a contemporaneous hoaxer would use a (used)photo album.

an actual diary, a manuscript, a pad of paper yes. a used photo album?
cmon.

and besides a "journal of thoughts written in a used photo album" just dosnt have the same ring to it! ; )

but perhaps the folks who are perpetuating this farce should use that term for accuracy sake then no?

[Sam Flynn]

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.

I see what you mean, Chris, but surely a (near)contemporary hoaxer would have easily been able to source a Victorian notebook, or at least a sheaf of Victorian writing paper. Why would they resort to a Victorian scrapbook/photo album, unless this was all they could find at a given remove in time?

[John G]

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

Hi Caz,

But surely if he had serious concerns about the book he would have made at least a rudimentary attempt to get it authenticated. For instance, he could have visited some local antiques shops; or even taken a trip to the University of Liverpool-then again, maybe not (sorry Caz, the second option was meant to be an in-joke!)

However, having embarked on the somewhat curious alternative of attempting to acquire an equivalent diary, and failing in the process, instead of berating himself for the omission of failing to stipulate a specific size range-" Oh dear Mike, that was a bit remiss of you", although he might have used slightly more colourful language!-he simply concludes that only an expert could have succeeded with such an Herculean task.

To be honest, Caz, I'm not really convinced. Mind you, on second thoughts this is unpredictable Mike we're talking about, and I'm beginning to think that where he's concerned almost any scenario seems possible!

[Sam Flynn]

instead of berating himself for the omission of failing to stipulate a specific size range...

Reminds me of Spinal Tap's "Stonehenge"

[John G]

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

Hi Caz,

Thanks for the information. To be honest, I was unaware that Anne claimed to have first seen the diary in the 1960s, although presumably her curiosity wasn't piqued to the extent that she thought about reading it! What I do find interesting is that most of the diary enthusiasts seem to have latched on to the under floorboards at Battlecrease scenario. Never mind that this version is in direct conflict with Anne's account, thereby effectively undermining, if not completely wrecking, any weak provenance the diary may have had!

[ChrisGeorge]

I see what you mean, Chris, but surely a (near)contemporary hoaxer would have easily been able to source a Victorian notebook, or at least a sheaf of Victorian writing paper. Why would they resort to a Victorian scrapbook/photo album, unless this was all they could find at a given remove in time?

Hi Sam and Abby

Thanks for recognizing what I was driving at -- that the document is not technically a diary that you would need to write in a printed diary.

I agree with you both that the choice of a "Victorian scrapbook/photo album" as the vehicle for this document is very odd. I keep hearing from about the supposed sophistication of the writer, but that choice alone doesn't say much for whomever wrote the thing.

Best regards

Chris

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Caz,

Thanks for the information. To be honest, I was unaware that Anne claimed to have first seen the diary in the 1960s, although presumably her curiosity wasn't piqued to the extent that she thought about reading it! What I do find interesting is that most of the diary enthusiasts seem to have latched on to the under floorboards at Battlecrease scenario. Never mind that this version is in direct conflict with Anne's account, thereby effectively undermining, if not completely wrecking, any weak provenance the diary may have had!

"Anne claimed to have first seen the diary in the 1960s," but surely only at the behest of Paul Feldman who promulgated the fantasy that the diary came from Anne's family.

Cheers

Chris

[John Wheat]

"Anne claimed to have first seen the diary in the 1960s,"

Chris

If you believe that you'll believe anything.

[Abby Normal]

How many versions of where it came from are there??

(that's not a rhetorical question)

[John G]

"Anne claimed to have first seen the diary in the 1960s," but surely only at the behest of Paul Feldman who promulgated the fantasy that the diary came from Anne's family.

Cheers

Chris

Hi Chris,

According to Feldman, one of the Battlecrease electricians intimated that he'd removed the diary from Battlecrease, although he ultimately concluded that said electrician would "lie for the right price."

Feldman then goes on to relate how Mike subsequently confronted the man and accused him of lying. Do you think that Feldman had any independent evidence for this supposed confrontation? Or was he wholly reliant on Unreliable Mike's account of the incident ?

[Graham]

Hi Chris,

According to Feldman, one of the Battlecrease electricians intimated that he'd removed the diary from Battlecrease, although he ultimately concluded that said electrician would "lie for the right price."

Feldman then goes on to relate how Mike subsequently confronted the man and accused him of lying. Do you think that Feldman had any independent evidence for this supposed confrontation? Or was he wholly reliant on Unreliable Mike's account of the incident ?

It's been quite some time since I read Feldman's book (which I enjoyed, by the way), but I seem to recall that he didn't place too much credence on the Battlecrease provenance. He said that he'd heard that the electricians had found 'something' under the floorboards and had taken whatever it was to Liverpool University. When he himself contacted Liverpool University for more information, he was more or less told to mind his own business. Later, he said that whatever it was the electrician's had found, it wasn't the Diary.

I always had the strong impression that he desperately wanted Anne's story of the Diary's provenance to be true. He wanted, it seems, to prove that Anne was actually descended from Florence Graham, and that the Diary had been in the possession of the Graham family for many years. Which is why he went to great lengths to try and establish a family link between existing Maybricks and Anne Graham. He was, after all, a film and TV producer, and was actively promoting his new proposed film in which James Maybrick would be cast as the genuine Jack The Ripper. He needed proof. Feldman effectively wore himself out with what became an obsession. The film was never made.

One tiny little detail sprung to mind recently: have the pages of The Diary ever been DNA tested?

Graham

[caz]

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

Good point, Chris.

Mike seems to have been the first person to label this book a 'diary', perhaps after seeing the last entry, which is the only one dated.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I see what you mean, Chris, but surely a (near)contemporary hoaxer would have easily been able to source a Victorian notebook, or at least a sheaf of Victorian writing paper. Why would they resort to a Victorian scrapbook/photo album, unless this was all they could find at a given remove in time?

Looking at it the other way round, Gareth, the hoaxer seems to have had "Sir Jim" writing his thoughts while at the office, and not wanting anyone to find and read them [until he is near the end]. So there is a case for the hoaxer not choosing a standard diary [much less one with "James Maybrick's Personal Journal" engraved on its cover ], which might have tempted a nosey office boy to take a sneaky peek.

And as I grow tired of repeating, my late father, who could have afforded the most expensive diary in London, used to make do with scrap paper whenever he wanted to write stuff down, some of which I still have. He also insisted on re-using Christmas wrapping paper, which drove us kids mad. But we gained from his frugality in the long run.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

But surely if he had serious concerns about the book he would have made at least a rudimentary attempt to get it authenticated. For instance, he could have visited some local antiques shops; or even taken a trip to the University of Liverpool-then again, maybe not (sorry Caz, the second option was meant to be an in-joke!)

If Mike had the diary at that point, yes. But what if he made his preliminary telephone enquiries before he had actually taken the diary off his electrician mate's hands for £25?

However, having embarked on the somewhat curious alternative of attempting to acquire an equivalent diary, and failing in the process, instead of berating himself for the omission of failing to stipulate a specific size range-" Oh dear Mike, that was a bit remiss of you", although he might have used slightly more colourful language!-he simply concludes that only an expert could have succeeded with such an Herculean task.

Not sure I grasp this, John. Why would size matter unless he needed this Victorian diary to forge JtR's? If he had already seen JtR's, judged it to be a diary from the date at the end, and just wanted to know how easy it would have been for a scallywag to obtain any diary from the 1880s with enough blank pages for a leg pull, the size of those pages need not have seemed an important consideration.

To be honest, Caz, I'm not really convinced. Mind you, on second thoughts this is unpredictable Mike we're talking about, and I'm beginning to think that where he's concerned almost any scenario seems possible!

You're just beginning to get the hang of how Mike operated. If you can do that you'll have to give the rest of us lessons.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Thanks for the information. To be honest, I was unaware that Anne claimed to have first seen the diary in the 1960s, although presumably her curiosity wasn't piqued to the extent that she thought about reading it! What I do find interesting is that most of the diary enthusiasts seem to have latched on to the under floorboards at Battlecrease scenario. Never mind that this version is in direct conflict with Anne's account, thereby effectively undermining, if not completely wrecking, any weak provenance the diary may have had!

Well doesn't that tell you that some of us want the truth, regardless of whether it's more inconvenient than convenient? If there is no reliable supporting evidence for one story [Anne/Devereux], and not enough - yet - for the others [Barrett hoax or Maybrick's floorboards], and none of them makes perfect sense alongside all the information we have to date, it's not a case of 'latching on' to the one we would most like to be true, but trying to find support for, or evidence against, each of the possible alternatives.

Love,

Caz
X