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

[AmericanSherlock]

I have read thru a few of these threads regarding the Maybrick diary. I am still trying to piece together some of the basic facts. Any help would be appreciated.

Am I correct in assuming that the majority of opinion of Ripperologists is that the diary was a fake? And that there is supporting evidence including a confession and an ad
searching for a diary (acquiring a Victorian diary)? And then of course many of the terms and colloquialisms are debated and dated here as we try to determine what era it likely came from.

What is the counter argument to this? Is there a particular, separate reason to believe the diary was real or is it simply a case of negating the criticisms of it (perhaps Mike the confessor had ulterior motives and was incapable of creating it anyway etc) . If all the evidence that points towards a fake is discredited then I could see one could argue for its at least possible authenticity as there would be no particular reason to assume it's fake.

However there does seem to be quite a bit of separate evidence it was faked or am I incorrect here? Can anyone offer a brief synopsis?

Am I also correct in inferring that the authors of the interesting Ripper Diary Book (I believe the poster Caz is 1 of them?) while somewhat impartial lean toward the authenticity of the diary? Would James Maybrick be a top suspect without the diary's existence?

Thanks, sorry for rambling post

[DirectorDave]

I have read thru a few of these threads regarding the Maybrick diary. I am still trying to piece together some of the basic facts. Any help would be appreciated.

Am I correct in assuming that the majority of opinion of Ripperologists is that the diary was a fake?

Yes, although amoung the plethora of suspects James Maybrick, due to the Diary is favoured by a significant minority of Ripperologists.

(That is taken from the (Dodgy) poll on here and my own experience of the field, we have not held an official Ripper Referendum yet!)

And that there is supporting evidence including a confession and an ad searching for a diary (acquiring a Victorian diary)?

Lots of evidence....not in Maybrick's Handwriting, Handwriting looks modern (imo), a couple of debated anachronisms, terrible provenance, confession of forgery (retracted), pages missing suggesting it was something else before this "diary"....to name a few.

I'll leave the case for the defence of this ex-photoalbum to it's disciples.

[John G]

Hello John,

I read an interesting explanation as to why British people use two extended fingers instead of one to insult somebody. The whole English archers thing. Are you familiar with that?

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

Yes, I was told it goes back to the Battle of Agincourt, because the French had threatened to cut off two fingers of any captured Englishman so they couldn't fire a bow: the English archers therefore raised two fingers as a show of defiance. Not sure how historical accurate this is though!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d always believed this story until I saw a Historian on tv a few months ago saying that it was a myth. I found this:

https://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/two-fingers-up-to-english-history/

[Sam Flynn]

I was told it goes back to the Battle of Agincourt, because the French had threatened to cut off two fingers of any captured Englishman so they couldn't fire a bow

The 500 Welsh longbowmen, who were so instrumental in Henry's success, were presumably exempted from such punishment

[Sam Flynn]

Would James Maybrick be a top suspect without the diary's existence?

It's highly unlikely that he'd have been mentioned in the same breath as the Ripper murders, if it hadn't been for the diary. Indeed, Liverpudlians and avid true crime enthusiasts apart, I doubt that many of us would even have heard about Maybrick in any capacity if the diary hadn't surfaced.

[Abby Normal]

Hi c.d.,

Yes, I was told it goes back to the Battle of Agincourt, because the French had threatened to cut off two fingers of any captured Englishman so they couldn't fire a bow: the English archers therefore raised two fingers as a show of defiance. Not sure how historical accurate this is though!

Bad day for the French, that one.

[Phil Carter]

Not in my experience, Caz. I've heard quasi-Cockneys in the Darftord/Bexley areas use the expression, and Phil has already posted that link to Peter Sellers' impression of a London actor using it. "I seen" - with its relatives, "I done", "I says" and "I goes" - seems to be present in the everyday speech of people of predominantly working-class cultures all over Britain, London included.

"I seen" isn't peculiarly Scouse, though, and that's never been my point. I believe that one or more lower-class (and, frankly, none-to-bright) people wrote the diary, and its containing the phrase "the whore seen her master" is perfectly congruent with that hypothesis.

Hello Gareth

Time to put this to bed once and for all.
The OED (Oxford English dictionary) describes the use of 'I seen .." as colloquial or dialectual.
The earliest example in the OED is in fact from Philidelphia in 1796.
An English example is in the 1861 follow up book to 'Tom Brown's Schooldays' called 'Tom Brown's Oxford'.

I think all can be agreed that this puts the proposed 'Liverpool only' dialect to bed.

(Cyril Waterman was..I believe..from North London and of Jewish decent)

That just about cans the problem tight..Don't you think?
☺


Phil

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, although amoung the plethora of suspects James Maybrick, due to the Diary is favoured by a significant minority of Ripperologists.

(That is taken from the (Dodgy) poll on here and my own experience of the field, we have not held an official Ripper Referendum yet!)



Lots of evidence....not in Maybrick's Handwriting, Handwriting looks modern (imo), a couple of debated anachronisms, terrible provenance, confession of forgery (retracted), pages missing suggesting it was something else before this "diary"....to name a few.

I'll leave the case for the defence of this ex-photoalbum to it's disciples.

Thanks Dave, that was informative. Yes, that was my impression that while most think the diary is a forgery, that among the minority that believe it to be genuine, there is an ardent level of support for his candidacy. Sort of like Walter Sickert fans. A cult level of support.

I'm reading the Ripper Diary book now so I will reserve judgement. I go in with an open mind. I would tend to think it was a forgery based on the things you detailed, but it is also hard for me to believe those in favor of its genuineness are totally without cause to think so?

[AmericanSherlock]

It's highly unlikely that he'd have been mentioned in the same breath as the Ripper murders, if it hadn't been for the diary. Indeed, Liverpudlians and avid true crime enthusiasts apart, I doubt that many of us would even have heard about Maybrick in any capacity if the diary hadn't surfaced.

Thanks Sam, that's interesting. If Maybrick wasn't a great suspect before the diaries surfaced, I would tend to think this increases the odds that it was a forgery. (If you think about it in a combined odds sort of a way.) Then again, you could argue the opposite, that he wouldn't be a good "choice" for a forger, being someone who was not a top suspect at the time the diaries surfaced!

Overall, I have to think the lack of other evidence against Maybrick at least relative to some of the main suspects makes it more likely the diary is a fake.

[DirectorDave]

I'm reading the Ripper Diary book now so I will reserve judgement. I go in with an open mind. I would tend to think it was a forgery based on the things you detailed, but it is also hard for me to believe those in favor of its genuineness are totally without cause to think so?

Most of the discussions around the "Diary" seem to focus on it's supporters asking for conclusive proof that it is fake...that has went on so long that the argument for it being genuine has been lost in the fog.

I think the idea is we read the thing, ignore the handwriting and anachronisms and "Maybrick's words" are meant to convince us.

It's a Victorian book?, it's probably written with old ink? Beyond that I'm struggling to come up with anything for the "Genuine column".

[caz]

Not in my experience, Caz. I've heard quasi-Cockneys in the Darftord/Bexley areas use the expression, and Phil has already posted that link to Peter Sellers' impression of a London actor using it. "I seen" - with its relatives, "I done", "I says" and "I goes" - seems to be present in the everyday speech of people of predominantly working-class cultures all over Britain, London included.

"I seen" isn't peculiarly Scouse, though, and that's never been my point. I believe that one or more lower-class (and, frankly, none-to-bright) people wrote the diary, and its containing the phrase "the whore seen her master" is perfectly congruent with that hypothesis.

And there's another of my pet hates, Gareth - writing 'to' when it should be 'too'. Extremely common among the lower orders.

[Yes, I know, you were just typing too quickly or didn't check before submitting. ]

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

[Yes, I know, you were just typing too quickly or didn't check before submitting. ]

Quite so

[caz]

I have read thru a few of these threads regarding the Maybrick diary. I am still trying to piece together some of the basic facts. Any help would be appreciated.

Am I correct in assuming that the majority of opinion of Ripperologists is that the diary was a fake? And that there is supporting evidence including a confession and an ad
searching for a diary (acquiring a Victorian diary)? And then of course many of the terms and colloquialisms are debated and dated here as we try to determine what era it likely came from.

What is the counter argument to this? Is there a particular, separate reason to believe the diary was real or is it simply a case of negating the criticisms of it (perhaps Mike the confessor had ulterior motives and was incapable of creating it anyway etc) . If all the evidence that points towards a fake is discredited then I could see one could argue for its at least possible authenticity as there would be no particular reason to assume it's fake.

However there does seem to be quite a bit of separate evidence it was faked or am I incorrect here? Can anyone offer a brief synopsis?

Am I also correct in inferring that the authors of the interesting Ripper Diary Book (I believe the poster Caz is 1 of them?) while somewhat impartial lean toward the authenticity of the diary? Would James Maybrick be a top suspect without the diary's existence?

Thanks, sorry for rambling post

Hi AS,

Welcome to the madhouse!

Yes, for my sins, I was one of the co-authors of Ripper Diary - The Inside Story, which was written to give a factual account of the first ten years since Mike Barrett introduced the diary to the world. It was never meant to include the authors' personal speculation about how, why and when the diary may have been created, or by whom - for starters we didn't think alike so it would have become a bit of a mess!

I hope the book doesn't read like the authors 'lean toward the authenticity' of the diary because neither Keith nor I think Maybrick wrote it. I didn't and don't accept that the evidence demonstrates it to be the work of either Mike Barrett or his ex wife, Anne Graham, or a joint effort, but we did try to include all the various claims and counter claims, opinions and conclusions of those at the centre of things from the start, and those who became involved along the way. The book was not about analysing the content of the diary for signs of fakery or authenticity - we let others do the talking on that score.

I hope that helps.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It's highly unlikely that he'd have been mentioned in the same breath as the Ripper murders, if it hadn't been for the diary. Indeed, Liverpudlians and avid true crime enthusiasts apart, I doubt that many of us would even have heard about Maybrick in any capacity if the diary hadn't surfaced.

Hi Gareth,

But then there is the watch. There is no evidence that the diary had anything to do with Albert's decision to take his watch into work, where the markings inside were noticed by a colleague. There is also no evidence that Mike knew about the watch, or had ever met the Johnsons, when Albert contacted Robert Smith about his discovery. If the watch markings came first [which the forensic evidence would suggest], they presumably provided the inspiration for the diary.

Had the diary not been written, or had it been thrown in a skip or otherwise destroyed, and had the watch minus Mike Barrett come to light as it did, I don't think it would have been dismissed so lightly as a recent hoax and Maybrick would have entered the frame with a good deal more street cred and refused to budge.

The diary may have done the field a favour in that respect.

Love,

Caz
X