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

[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]

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

[Graham]

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

Graham

[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

[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.

[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!

[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.

[Abby Normal]

For me it boils down to this.

The diary purports to have been written in the 1880's by James Maybrick who chose to use, not an 1888 diary, but a scrap-book from that period with some pages torn out.

Why did the author use a scrapbook instead of an 1888 diary?

Likely (IMHO) reason: he couldn't get hold of an 1888 diary.

Availability, in 1888, of an unused 1888 diary? A doddle.

Availability, at a later date, of an unused 1888 diary? Problematic if not almost impossible.

My conclusion: The diary was not written in the late 1880's and therefore not written by James Maybrick. If it wasn't written by James Maybrick it is, de facto, a forgery and it's authorship is academic.

Hi Bridewell
yup and another take on it:

The author states that he wanted it to be found and be known that he James Maybrick was the ripper.

therefor, not only would he not disguise/alter his handwriting, he wouldn't hide it. Hence Maybrick did not write it. (its not his handwriting).

so were left with possibility of old forgery. An old forger also would not have hid it. Nor used the phrase one off instance, or tin box empty etc. hence not an old forger.

and neither as you say would have used a photo album.

and ZERO evidence it came out of Battlecrease.

so were left with modern forgery. who was the modern forger?
The provenance starts and ends with MB and his wife.

MB attempted to obtain a Victorian diary.

the lies and changing stories exemplify he/they have zero credibility.

MB forged it probably with the help of his wife.

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

[John Wheat]

For me it boils down to this.

The diary purports to have been written in the 1880's by James Maybrick who chose to use, not an 1888 diary, but a scrap-book from that period with some pages torn out.

Why did the author use a scrapbook instead of an 1888 diary?

Likely (IMHO) reason: he couldn't get hold of an 1888 diary.

Availability, in 1888, of an unused 1888 diary? A doddle.

Availability, at a later date, of an unused 1888 diary? Problematic if not almost impossible.

My conclusion: The diary was not written in the late 1880's and therefore not written by James Maybrick. If it wasn't written by James Maybrick it is, de facto, a forgery and it's authorship is academic.

I think you've summed up the sensible position Bridewell. All the diary fans can come up with in response is that Mike Barrett was too stupid to fabricate the diary. What a pathetic response. A published journalist and a known bullshiter not being able to fabricate quite a simplistic document. Come off it. Even if Mike didn't solely fabricate the diary so what it wouldn't have taken a genius to assist him.

[Bridewell]

For me it boils down to this.

The diary purports to have been written in the 1880's by James Maybrick who chose to use, not an 1888 diary, but a scrap-book from that period with some pages torn out.

Why did the author use a scrapbook instead of an 1888 diary?

Likely (IMHO) reason: he couldn't get hold of an 1888 diary.

Availability, in 1888, of an unused 1888 diary? A doddle.

Availability, at a later date, of an unused 1888 diary? Problematic if not almost impossible.

My conclusion: The diary was not written in the late 1880's and therefore not written by James Maybrick. If it wasn't written by James Maybrick it is, de facto, a forgery and it's authorship is academic.

[John G]

Hi John,

I just wondered where you got the idea that Mike made 'strenuous efforts' to get hold of the tiny 1891 diary, which was sent to him at the end of March 1992, as a result of what seems to have been a single telephone enquiry on his part?

Also, Mike's 'very specific' specifications failed to include any page size requirement and allowed for the requested diary to have been for any year from 1880 to 1890. I wonder if David has calculated the chances of such an enquiry producing anything that would have proved suitable for the text of 'the' diary as we know it?

Just suppose Mike saw the 1889 date on the last handwritten page of 'the' diary, and simply wanted to find out how easy it would have been for some practical joker to get hold of an unused or partly used diary from the 1880s. Would you say the actual wording of the advert would then sound just about right for that brief?

Love,

Caz
X

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?

[caz]

However, David makes a very good point when he draws attention to the "coincidence" of Mike making strenuous efforts to acquire a Victorian dairy , with very specific specifications, just prior to the diary being released into the public domain.

Hi John,

I just wondered where you got the idea that Mike made 'strenuous efforts' to get hold of the tiny 1891 diary, which was sent to him at the end of March 1992, as a result of what seems to have been a single telephone enquiry on his part?

Also, Mike's 'very specific' specifications failed to include any page size requirement and allowed for the requested diary to have been for any year from 1880 to 1890. I wonder if David has calculated the chances of such an enquiry producing anything that would have proved suitable for the text of 'the' diary as we know it?

Just suppose Mike saw the 1889 date on the last handwritten page of 'the' diary, and simply wanted to find out how easy it would have been for some practical joker to get hold of an unused or partly used diary from the 1880s. Would you say the actual wording of the advert would then sound just about right for that brief?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The full transcript reveals he had a stroke between coming into possession of the photo album and it being revealed.

So the "blithering idiot" portrayal of Mike Barrett that we have accepted over the last 25 years is a false one...he was in fact a man recovering from a stroke.

Hi DD,

Does this mean you also accept Mike was 'in fact' a member of MI5, who was awarded a gallantry medal for foiling an IRA plot? Because he said so?

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Clearly not, Caz, and I've never implied anything of the sort. What I would expect, however, would be something rather different to the semi-literate and risible attempt at grand guignol that we see in the diary.

I agree Sam. Mike Barrett is clearly not too stupid to have fabricated the diary.

[Harry D]

Debating with pro-diarists is like debating the authenticity of the Bible with a devout Christian. They have made that leap of faith and no appeal to reason will convince them it's anything other than the Word of God.