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

[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

[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

[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!

[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]

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]

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?

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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