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

[John Wheat]

Who did write it isn't as important as who didn't, and it certainly wasn't James Maybrick.

That's all true Harry.

[Harry D]

Who did write it isn't as important as who didn't, and it certainly wasn't James Maybrick.

[Abby Normal]

I wasn't exactly "wrong" about either, Caz, in that the point I've made relates to when these phrases would have penetrated into routine parlance such that they could be deployed in the throwaway manner in which they are used in the diary.

For example, when would "top myself" have passed into everyday use such that Mr/Mrs Ordinary would use it to refer to suicide in general, as opposed its being a slang term used by a criminal to refer to hanging himself? The phrase "give her a call" wasn't initially picked up by me, incidentally, but I still believe it significant in that the casual usage of the phrase "giving someone a call" most likely attained prevalence in the everyday lexicon only when easy access to telephones had become the norm.

And we still have to account for "one-off instance" (as opposed to a one-off thing/person) and "spreading mayhem" (in the sense of confusion and chaos vs bodily harm), both of which senses appear to have achieved widespread popular currency only in the latter third of the 20th Century. Individual phrases aside, my main point is that we have to account for all of them appearing in a comparatively short text composed any earlier than that. I've yet to see anything like a satisfactory explanation for this.

Hi Sam

The phrase "give her a call" wasn't initially picked up by me, incidentally, but I still believe it significant in that the casual usage of the phrase "giving someone a call" most likely attained prevalence in the everyday lexicon only when easy access to telephones had become the norm.

I'm not sure if I was the one who initially picked up on this one, but I did mention it at one time, and I totally agree with you on it.

"call on her", "give her a visit" perhaps, but "give her a call"?? no.

[Abby Normal]

Morning John,

The first phone call to Doreen's literary agency was on March 9th, the second on March 10th. The telephone request for a Victorian diary must have been made at roughly the same time, but Mike did not receive the red 1891 diary until March 27th or 28th. David's theory is that the guardbook was then very quickly acquired at an auction on March 31st. By April 8th the meeting with Doreen and the finished diary had been set for Monday April 13th.



Quite, but Mike's claim was that the diary was completed - as in handwritten into the guardbook over the course of 11 days - while TD was severely ill, in which case he'd have had all the basic materials, including the pen and ink, before August 1991. Yet the point of claiming it took 11 days was presumably to sandwich the physical creation between the rejection of the red diary/acquisition of the guardbook, and the trip to London with the latter. That was the only way he could use the red diary as evidence of a failed attempt to obtain something suitable to house the diary. Had he been thinking more clearly, he might have had the sense to put the auction and guardbook before the red diary, and claim the latter was a last-minute attempt to obtain something more credible - an actual diary - because he'd had misgivings for some time over the guardbook they had used.



I totally agree, which is why I would need some really good independent evidence for anything Mike claimed. The red diary comes the closest, perhaps, but is it enough on its own?



Be my guest.



I'm not sure about Brian Rawes relating the story to Alan Davies. Brian first heard about it from Eddie Lyons in July 1992 and got the impression it was a recent find [although "I found something" sounds identical to "I've found something", so Brian could have 'heard' the latter and misinterpreted it]. At the time, Davies was on sick leave following his car accident in the June, and was officially off work for six months. Assuming he was back in the loop in the December, and told Alan Dodgson about the diary, thinking it may still be looking for an owner, when did he first hear about it and who told him? On Tuesday March 17th, 1992, Davies worked for two hours for Portus & Rhodes on the Skelmersdale contract, so there's at least a possibility that he heard some talk about it then, a week and a day after the floorboards were lifted in Battlecrease. This is something I hope can be explored further.



An old forgery would be anything before the late 1980s, when certain details in the diary text were apparently published for the first time, so it's not 'one off' that's the problem if this expression could have been used as early as, say, the 1940s-1960s [I know Gareth will object most strongly, but he was wrong about 'topping oneself' and 'give me a call'].



I'm not sure I've heard that one before, that Mike pinched it from an electrician. But if there was some 'honour amongst thieves' agreement between them to stay mum about when Mike acquired the diary and from whom, that would certainly explain Mike's lightning fast reaction to hearing that Eddie had asked Feldy what his confession [to taking the diary from the house] was worth.

Love,

Caz
X

An old forgery would be anything before the late 1980s, when certain details in the diary text were apparently published for the first time, so it's not 'one off' that's the problem if this expression could have been used as early as, say, the 1940s-1960s [I know Gareth will object most strongly, but he was wrong about 'topping oneself' and 'give me a call'].

lets see here. not by maybrick, so maybe its a Victorian hoax. oops, not a Victorian hoax, but its still an old hoax. old hoax defined by "before the late 80s". lol.

at least your getting warmer.

[Sam Flynn]

An old forgery would be anything before the late 1980s, when certain details in the diary text were apparently published for the first time, so it's not 'one off' that's the problem if this expression could have been used as early as, say, the 1940s-1960s [I know Gareth will object most strongly, but he was wrong about 'topping oneself' and 'give me a call'].

I wasn't exactly "wrong" about either, Caz, in that the point I've made relates to when these phrases would have penetrated into routine parlance such that they could be deployed in the throwaway manner in which they are used in the diary.

For example, when would "top myself" have passed into everyday use such that Mr/Mrs Ordinary would use it to refer to suicide in general, as opposed its being a slang term used by a criminal to refer to hanging himself? The phrase "give her a call" wasn't initially picked up by me, incidentally, but I still believe it significant in that the casual usage of the phrase "giving someone a call" most likely attained prevalence in the everyday lexicon only when easy access to telephones had become the norm.

And we still have to account for "one-off instance" (as opposed to a one-off thing/person) and "spreading mayhem" (in the sense of confusion and chaos vs bodily harm), both of which senses appear to have achieved widespread popular currency only in the latter third of the 20th Century. Individual phrases aside, my main point is that we have to account for all of them appearing in a comparatively short text composed any earlier than that. I've yet to see anything like a satisfactory explanation for this.

[caz]

However, David's theory has a certain neatness about it: the red book being acquired in March, shortly followed by the photograph album, resulting in the phone call to Doreen in April.

Morning John,

The first phone call to Doreen's literary agency was on March 9th, the second on March 10th. The telephone request for a Victorian diary must have been made at roughly the same time, but Mike did not receive the red 1891 diary until March 27th or 28th. David's theory is that the guardbook was then very quickly acquired at an auction on March 31st. By April 8th the meeting with Doreen and the finished diary had been set for Monday April 13th.

Moreover, if the Diary had been completed in the summer of 1991, why were efforts still being made in March to acquire a Diary? Even if you argue that the purpose of this initiative was to determine how easy it was to obtain the basic materials for a hoax, it doesn't explain a delay of of at least 6 months.

Quite, but Mike's claim was that the diary was completed - as in handwritten into the guardbook over the course of 11 days - while TD was severely ill, in which case he'd have had all the basic materials, including the pen and ink, before August 1991. Yet the point of claiming it took 11 days was presumably to sandwich the physical creation between the rejection of the red diary/acquisition of the guardbook, and the trip to London with the latter. That was the only way he could use the red diary as evidence of a failed attempt to obtain something suitable to house the diary. Had he been thinking more clearly, he might have had the sense to put the auction and guardbook before the red diary, and claim the latter was a last-minute attempt to obtain something more credible - an actual diary - because he'd had misgivings for some time over the guardbook they had used.

Nonetheless, it's important not to be selective about the parts of Mike's affidavit we choose to accept, and those we elect to reject.

I totally agree, which is why I would need some really good independent evidence for anything Mike claimed. The red diary comes the closest, perhaps, but is it enough on its own?

If I may, I'll just make a few comments about the alternative Battlecrease theory.

Be my guest.

Personally I have a number of issues with this argument. Firstly, the only evidence for a diary being found under the floorboards rests with Alan Davies. However, this is hearsay evidence at best: He wasn't working at the house, it was a story related to him by Brian Rawes, who also wasn't inside the house at the time of the alleged discovery as he was the driver, with the story being related to him by one of the electricians. Moreover, all he recalled was being told that "I've found something", so not necessarily a book, let alone a diary.

I'm not sure about Brian Rawes relating the story to Alan Davies. Brian first heard about it from Eddie Lyons in July 1992 and got the impression it was a recent find [although "I found something" sounds identical to "I've found something", so Brian could have 'heard' the latter and misinterpreted it]. At the time, Davies was on sick leave following his car accident in the June, and was officially off work for six months. Assuming he was back in the loop in the December, and told Alan Dodgson about the diary, thinking it may still be looking for an owner, when did he first hear about it and who told him? On Tuesday March 17th, 1992, Davies worked for two hours for Portus & Rhodes on the Skelmersdale contract, so there's at least a possibility that he heard some talk about it then, a week and a day after the floorboards were lifted in Battlecrease. This is something I hope can be explored further.

Secondly, a find at Battlecrease would suggest an old forgery, whereas I believe the Diary to be a modern forgery, if only on account of the "one-off" problem.

An old forgery would be anything before the late 1980s, when certain details in the diary text were apparently published for the first time, so it's not 'one off' that's the problem if this expression could have been used as early as, say, the 1940s-1960s [I know Gareth will object most strongly, but he was wrong about 'topping oneself' and 'give me a call'].

Thirdly, if Mike had stolen the Diary from one of the electricians, or tricked him out of it, I see no way that Mike would have subsequently confronted Eddie Lyons on any pretext. More likely he would have fled the city under an assumed identity!

I'm not sure I've heard that one before, that Mike pinched it from an electrician. But if there was some 'honour amongst thieves' agreement between them to stay mum about when Mike acquired the diary and from whom, that would certainly explain Mike's lightning fast reaction to hearing that Eddie had asked Feldy what his confession [to taking the diary from the house] was worth.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Hi John,

I do think that would be slightly less problematic. Of course, it doesn't fit with the known dates for the red diary and David's as yet unsupported theory that Mike was telling the truth in January 1995 about how he acquired and used the guardbook after the red diary proved unsuitable.

Mike claimed he and Anne had used the guardbook to write out the diary text in 11 days, then left it a while after completion because TD was severely ill at the time. TD died in August 1991.

The red diary was not even enquired about or received until March 1992.

So why would the guardbook have suddenly been considered unsuitable, and an alternative sought, several months after completion?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes, very important point about TD. Thus, in the affidavit, Mike remarks:

"During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony with Tony being severely ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990"

On this basis, the Diary must have been completed in the summer of 1991 at the latest which, of course, can in no way be reconciled with David's theory, involving the Diary being completed in the spring of 1992, I.e. at least 6 months later.

Now, at a stretch, you might accept that Mike, during his affidavit, got mixed up over a few dates. However, I can see no way that he would have got confused about the Diary being completed before Tony died, especially as he also recalls the fact that the project was put on hold on account of TD's illness.

But if the affidavit is broadly accurate, why would he lie about this incident? In fact, why mention TD at all, considering that he seemed eager to claim most of the credit for himself? It's also worth bearing in mind that the affidavit was submitted just 3 years after the Diary was made public, not 30 years, making it even more difficult to explain how he could have made such a fundamental factual error.

However, David's theory has a certain neatness about it: the red book being acquired in March, shortly followed by the photograph album, resulting in the phone call to Doreen in April. Moreover, if the Diary had been completed in the summer of 1991, why were efforts still being made in March to acquire a Diary? Even if you argue that the purpose of this initiative was to determine how easy it was to obtain the basic materials for a hoax, it doesn't explain a delay of of at least 6 months.

Nonetheless, it's important not to be selective about the parts of Mike's affidavit we choose to accept, and those we elect to reject. In other words, it's obviously not objective to totally dismiss the TD anomaly, simply because it doesn't fit with a particular theory, especially as the inconsistency is difficult to explain. I would also add that there is no proof Mike purchased the Victorian photograph album, let alone the time of purchase, or the method of acquisition.

If I may, I'll just make a few comments about the alternative Battlecrease theory. Personally I have a number of issues with this argument. Firstly, the only evidence for a diary being found under the floorboards rests with Alan Davies. However, this is hearsay evidence at best: He wasn't working at the house, it was a story related to him by Brian Rawes, who also wasn't inside the house at the time of the alleged discovery as he was the driver, with the story being related to him by one of the electricians. Moreover, all he recalled was being told that "I've found something", so not necessarily a book, let alone a diary.

Secondly, a find at Battlecrease would suggest an old forgery, whereas I believe the Diary to be a modern forgery, if only on account of the "one-off" problem.

Thirdly, if Mike had stolen the Diary from one of the electricians, or tricked him out of it, I see no way that Mike would have subsequently confronted Eddie Lyons on any pretext. More likely he would have fled the city under an assumed identity!

[caz]

Hi John,

I do think that would be slightly less problematic. Of course, it doesn't fit with the known dates for the red diary and David's as yet unsupported theory that Mike was telling the truth in January 1995 about how he acquired and used the guardbook after the red diary proved unsuitable.

Mike claimed he and Anne had used the guardbook to write out the diary text in 11 days, then left it a while after completion because TD was severely ill at the time. TD died in August 1991.

The red diary was not even enquired about or received until March 1992.

So why would the guardbook have suddenly been considered unsuitable, and an alternative sought, several months after completion?

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

I have no idea what Mike was expecting people to take from his January 1995 claim regarding the little red diary. But it seems it was meant to represent a failed attempt on his part to acquire a suitable book for the diary text. Given the finished product, he presumably considered the guardbook was suitable - or at least fit enough for purpose.

But as with the watch and diary, which came first? The guardbook or little red diary?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Could it be the case that the guardbook came first, but was initially rejected as unsuitable? Therefore, a further attempt was made, resulting in the even less suitable red diary. As a consequence, the forgers decide to go with the guardbook after all. Could this explain some of the confusion over dates?

[caz]

Hi Caz (again!),

Excuse my stupidity, but what exactly did Mike mean regarding the his intention to use the red book to house the forgery (I might have misunderstood this point). I'm assuming he wasn't planning to write out the diary on Victorian paper, using Victorian ink, and then use Victorian paste, or glue, to secure the pages-mind you, with Mike, you never know!

I have no idea what Mike was expecting people to take from his January 1995 claim regarding the little red diary. But it seems it was meant to represent a failed attempt on his part to acquire a suitable book for the diary text. Given the finished product, he presumably considered the guardbook was suitable - or at least fit enough for purpose.

But as with the watch and diary, which came first? The guardbook or little red diary?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

To be honest, I think Caroline's account must stand or fall on the basis of Anne's explanation. Thus, if The Diary was discovered at Battlecrease, it makes no sense. If Anne wasn't telling the truth in virtually any respect, then it makes no sense.

Of course, as to dates, on the face of it the two accounts can't be reconciled: he can't have been discussing The Diary with TD in 1991 if it wasn't created until 1992.

However, one possible explanation is that Mike received a completed forged diary, via TD, in 1991 and was genuinely unaware of where it originated from. He doesn't believe it's genuine and, after investigating the matter, he determines its a forgery. Nonethless, he's then drawn into the conspiracy, and agrees to go ahead with an attempted hoax, but with a revised forgery that isn't created until 1992!

But that seems a bit convoluted to me!

The only way I might possibly make sense of what Caroline claimed to recall, assuming she wasn't coached by her parents with a story made up from whole cloth, but did recall the basic events, is if Mike was pestering Eddie Lyons with questions about the diary and where it came from, not TD, and this was in March 1992, not 1991. Questions like: "Come off it, mate. Jack the Ripper's diary? Where the hell did you get it and why should I believe it's real?"

Did Caroline know, in March 1992, that TD had died in August 1991? Had she ever met him? Did she know what he looked like, or where exactly he lived? Did she ever hear her father mention TD's name when he was supposedly pestering him over the phone, or at his house in Fountains Road - the same road where Eddie was living? Did Caroline understandably presume this must have been Tony, because that was what her parents had been saying since April 1992, a year before she was asked to recall this pestering? If only she had said: "This was all going on about a year ago, just before Dad took the diary to London". But if she wasn't asked...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Thank you. I think I now understand.

It could be that Mike was only trusted with a minor role in a wider conspiracy, and was therefore genuinely in the dark as to the exact purpose of the red diary.

Possibly, John, but would it really have been considered a 'minor' role, to obtain a suitable book for the diary text [preferably without leaving a provable paper trail] - and why would the forger have left Mike in the dark about the exact purpose of this book, to the extent that he ordered quite the wrong thing for the job?

Alternatively, if we reject that explanation, then it was certainly remiss of him to fail to stipulate dimensions. However, perhaps he didn't think things through properly, and assumed that, as a result of the advertisement, he would be inundated with responses, which was almost bound to result in something suitable.

Or perhaps he wasn't in a hurry: if he failed to receive anything suitable he would try a different strategy: visting antiques shops, antiques fayres, or an auction-the latter option being the means by which he claimed to have obtained the photograph album.

That sounds more reasonable.

However, if his purpose in placing the advertisement was merely to determine how easy it would be find a housing for a forged diary, then surely, on the basis of a single, poorly worded advertisement, resulting in something unsuitable, he would not be entitled to conclude that it would have been an impossible, or even difficult, task.

No, but in that case he would not necessarily have thought the ad was poorly worded. Basically, if he only wanted to know if unused or partly used diaries from the 1880s were ten a penny in 1992, or not so very easily obtainable, he finally received his answer in the form of a single specimen - and for 1891, a year outside his specified dates. Whatever he thought of it, he apparently abandoned this line of enquiry and was soon ready to set a date for his meeting with Doreen, which appears to have taken place when daughter Caroline's school had broken up for the Easter holidays and he wouldn't be on school run duty.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Hi Caz (again!),

Excuse my stupidity, but what exactly did Mike mean regarding the his intention to use the red book to house the forgery (I might have misunderstood this point). I'm assuming he wasn't planning to write out the diary on Victorian paper, using Victorian ink, and then use Victorian paste, or glue, to secure the pages-mind you, with Mike, you never know!

[John G]

Hi John,

Have you any further thoughts about Caroline's recollection in 1993, given that Tony died in August 1991, and in Mike's affidavit he claimed:

'Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline.'

How would you reconcile the two accounts: the phone calls in 1991 as recalled by Caroline, and the 11 day creation - supposedly not until early April 1992 - which Mike claimed she witnessed?

Mike went on:

'During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.'

He wasn't only getting his dates in a mucking fuddle here. If the diary was only written after the little red one was received and rejected and the guardbook obtained at the very end of March 1992, and this was in London 13 days later, they must have 'left it' for all of two days, with poor old Tony being severely ill and what have you. Granted, you can't get much more severely ill than dead, but having died 8 months previously he probably wasn't going to recover in time to see the fruits of their combined labours making it onto the London train and ordering a slice of British Rail coffee.

Anyway, Caroline's memory seems to have differed significantly from her father's, if she only recalled his telephone calls supposedly to Tony, pestering him about the diary now in Goldie Street, apparently because he had refused to say how he got it, while Mike claimed she actually witnessed its creation nearly a year later.



Very wise, John.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

To be honest, I think Caroline's account must stand or fall on the basis of Anne's explanation. Thus, if The Diary was discovered at Battlecrease, it makes no sense. If Anne wasn't telling the truth in virtually any respect, then it makes no sense.

Of course, as to dates, on the face of it the two accounts can't be reconciled: he can't have been discussing The Diary with TD in 1991 if it wasn't created until 1992.

However, one possible explanation is that Mike received a completed forged diary, via TD, in 1991 and was genuinely unaware of where it originated from. He doesn't believe it's genuine and, after investigating the matter, he determines its a forgery. Nonethless, he's then drawn into the conspiracy, and agrees to go ahead with an attempted hoax, but with a revised forgery that isn't created until 1992!

But that seems a bit convoluted to me!

[John G]

Not quite, John, no. Let me try again and apologies for not being clearer!

I do think that anyone being shown this old book for the first time would have been sceptical to say the least. "Jack the Ripper?? You have got to be kidding me". However, this is Mike we are talking about. And if he had nothing to do with its creation, but was first shown it either in 1991 by TD or, far more likely IMHO, on March 9th 1992 by EL, we can only imagine what his immediate reaction might have been.

Well we know exactly what he did on or around March 9th 1992: he rang a literary agent and made the first known and documented mention of JtR's diary. He also made the telephone enquiry about diaries with blank pages from the 1880s. If this was his way of investigating the likelihood of EL [or A.N.Other] having pulled his leg with an easily obtainable unused or partly used Victorian diary, we can only guess what his reaction was when the little red diary arrived. But he wasn't sent half a dozen items that would all have been a forger's dream, and by then he had already interested Doreen to the point that she wanted him to bring his diary to London, so he decided to take the plunge and was rewarded when all went well on April 13th.

The alternative, that the Maybrick diary had been a work in progress for up to two years previously, and Mike was only just now, on or around March 9th 1992, tasked with ascertaining if anyone might be interested in publishing such an artefact [??], and then trying to find a suitable 'diary' [which is what he asked for] in which to house the prepared text, strikes me as stretching things to breaking point in an attempt to make things fit with Mike's shaky old affidavit from January 1995.



Yes, you assumed correctly. I have no doubt whatsoever that the advert placed in 1992 resulted in Mike being sent the little red diary.



But this supposes that Mike was telling the truth in 1995, when claiming that the little red diary was evidence of an attempt to find a suitable book to house the forged diary. He was using its small size to explain why the attempt obviously failed, when anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have specified a minimum page size to begin with if they were really hoping to use it for that purpose. It's a point I've made more than once and all I got were excuses for why Mike might have been unable to get this crucial detail included in the advert, even supposing he thought to ask.

Trying to ascertain the general availability to a potential prankster of 1880s diaries with blank pages would have been one thing; trying to obtain one suitable for housing the prepared Maybrick diary text would have been quite another. If Mike had had up to two years for this task, and the text was now ready to go, barring any last-minute amendments, one has to ask what he was thinking of with that advert, assuming it was worded roughly in line with his request.

None of the entries are dated [apart from the final one], but they cover a period from early 1888 to May 1889 and 63 pages of the guardbook measuring approx 11 x 8.5 inches, so by asking for a 'diary' - singular and any size - dating from 1880 to 1890, Mike would already have been lessening his chances significantly of getting anything a forger could have used for the text as we know it.

Is that any better?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Thank you. I think I now understand.

It could be that Mike was only trusted with a minor role in a wider conspiracy, and was therefore genuinely in the dark as to the exact purpose of the red diary.

Alternatively, if we reject that explanation, then it was certainly remiss of him to fail to stipulate dimensions. However, perhaps he didn't think things through properly, and assumed that, as a result of the advertisement, he would be inundated with responses, which was almost bound to result in something suitable.

Or perhaps he wasn't in a hurry: if he failed to receive anything suitable he would try a different strategy: visting antiques shops, antiques fayres, or an auction-the latter option being the means by which he claimed to have obtained the photograph album.

However, if his purpose in placing the advertisement was merely to determine how easy it would be find a housing for a forged diary, then surely, on the basis of a single, poorly worded advertisement, resulting in something unsuitable, he would not be entitled to conclude that it would have been an impossible, or even difficult, task.

Hope this makes sense!