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

[Henry Flower]

When will you have something worthwhile to discuss about the case without sarcasm. The immaturity on these threads sometimes is astounding.

Spider, leave your details with Admin and they can contact you when they've dealt with all the dangerous sarcasm and it's safe for you to return.

[Spider]

James Maybrick
How popular is this suspect?


Votes: 9874
Average: 8.297
Ranking: 1st of 22


When will you have something worthwhile to discuss about the case without sarcasm. The immaturity on these threads sometimes is astounding.

[Kaz]

Kaz, but in truth it now becomes clear you are merely a troll and a mischief-maker.

Mischeif-maker.... guilty Anyone who knows me well will confirm it

Troll on the other hand... no, read practically all there is available regarding the Diary, something I find fascinating, JM still fits ludicrously well

And I can't see how the odd word/handwriting/pub puts the diary to bed, those points have been explained away for decades.

I'll remain open minded and continue to 'hope' that one bit of information materialises and decides it one way or the other.


ps. no mudslinging from my side

[DirectorDave]

That's just what I was thinking. However, I think we've established that maths isn't Spider's forte!

It's also worth pointing out that 5947 voted for Prince Albert Victor!

4228 for the royal conspiracy too...so 10175 people think Eddy was involved.

[Henry Flower]

Kaz:

The naysayers are always going to jump on the provenance as reason to bury the diary as theres very little else they have.

And now the joke becomes apparent. We've been taking you semi-seriously, Kaz, but in truth it now becomes clear you are merely a troll and a mischief-maker.

Good effort to keep it up for so long, I must say.

[Henry Flower]

Henry quite probably stated aloud what a lot of people were thinking privately.
That said, it might be pointed out in Keith Skinner's defense (and Shirley Harrison's for that matter) that by staying 'close' to Mike Barrett and Anne Graham, they were able to gather information that would have otherwise been lost. None of the early researchers had the powers of the police; they couldn't subpoena witnesses or demand bank statements, lie detector tests, etc., They had to muddle through the best they could and use persuasion. It's ironic; I'm completely a 'modern hoax' advocate--I think there is not doubt whatsoever--but I think we owe them something of a debt. Harrison 'made the rounds,' questioned people, and reported back. And (irony again) the single gravest piece of evidence against Barrett--the purchase of the maroon diary--would not have been fully confirmed if Keith had not obtained it from Anne Graham (along with the receipt). He couldn't have done that from the wings. So that certainly demonstrates great integrity--something worth remembering as we rake one another over the coals.

rj - I agree with every word you say there, and my only quibble is that it might be inferred from your post - whether or not it was implied - that I was in any sense criticising KS. That was absolutely not the case at all, I have nothing but admiration for his work and have no problem with researchers investigating from the 'inside', so to speak. No problem at all. I was attempting only to rebut the notion that someone who has been on the inside must necessarily be closer to the truth of the matter than mere 'armchair detectives' or keyboard warriors. No criticism of KS or any serious researcher was implied at all, far from it.

But yes, I agree with your analysis. The more time you spend among the trees the harder it can be to see the wood. Sometimes things are more readily apparent from a certain distance, but I would have no doubts about KS's professionalism or integrity whatsoever, and in fact I can't wait until his membership is approved and activated. (When!?)

[John G]

Unless someone has changed the definition of "majority" without telling me you are just plain wrong.

9874 (Maybrick votes)
/
75805 (Total votes)
=.130 * 100 = 13.0%

13.0% is not a majority.

That's just what I was thinking. However, I think we've established that maths isn't Spider's forte!

It's also worth pointing out that 5947 voted for Prince Albert Victor!

[DirectorDave]

There is a Suspect Survey on casebook, and the top suspect since the appearance of Maybrick and the 'Diary' has been Maybrick.
This is not due to the majority of posters on here. It is due to the silent majority, the same silent majority who are loathe to post on here due to the lambasting they receive from the anti-diary camp who in the main have in fact little to offer to the debate but shoot down those that do post.

Unless someone has changed the definition of "majority" without telling me you are just plain wrong.

9874 (Maybrick votes)
/
75805 (Total votes)
=.130 * 100 = 13.0%

13.0% is not a majority.

[DirectorDave]

The naysayers are always going to jump on the provenance as reason to bury the diary as theres very little else they have.

Yeah apart from the handwriting, post house, one off, a confession of forgery, a retraction of confession, lack of detail and no dates.

There was a programme on back in sep/oct, "Britains lost masterpieces", works of art by the worlds greatest artists, buried in store rooms, covered up never to see the light of day simply because the provenance has been lost. Great lengths, time and expertise were used to prove the pieces of art got the recognition they deserve.

I've watched all those shows and for every masterpiece lying in some cellar with lost providence there will be multiple forgeries that never had one to lose in the first place.

Art forgery is a billion dollar industry and it is not uncommon for a painting to have a provenance be billed as genuine only to turn out is is in fact a forgery.

And for that what do we get in return.... mud slinging ...poor show IMO

I don't think it is a poor show, expecting people to be all nicey nicey when they are being told to keep an open mind about something that started out preposterous and got even more so over the last 25 years is asking a bit much.

[James_J]

Just passing this along from KS :-


TO R.J.PALMER

Thank you for your two recent posts Roger, #33 and #34. I’m log piling a list of questions for you, in response to some of your previous statements, but just wanted to quickly clarify your reference to ‘Ripper Diary’ choosing to ignore Melvin Harris’s article in “Ripper Notes” about Mr Kane’s handwriting. You say Melvin’s observations and examples appeared in “Ripper Notes” around 2002? Checking back through my back copies, I cannot find it, although there is a five page criticism by Melvin on ‘Ripper Diary’ which, in part, discusses the handwriting “...of one of Devereux’s friend who witnessed his [Devereux’s] Will” I take this to be Mr Kane. This appeared in the January 2004 issue of “Ripper Notes” (p.45) and our book “Ripper Diary” was published in 2003 – which makes me think I must have missed the article which you have in mind? It’s strange though that Melvin doesn’t back reference it in his 2004 article? Are you able to identify which issue it appears in please? Melvin’s feature, (although a blistering attack on my partisanship, deception and incompetence), does give his side of the story and is worth reading for balance. I’m going to ask James if he could create a link to it for those who are interested.

All Good Wishes

Keith

[Spider]

"In all honesty I think you are standing with the mouthy minority."

There is a Suspect Survey on casebook, and the top suspect since the appearance of Maybrick and the 'Diary' has been Maybrick.
This is not due to the majority of posters on here. It is due to the silent majority, the same silent majority who are loathe to post on here due to the lambasting they receive from the anti-diary camp who in the main have in fact little to offer to the debate but shoot down those that do post.

And so on the contrary, it is a portion of the anti-diary camp, who having little to debate, are in fact the 'mouthy' ones. You have adequately proven my point

[Kaz]

“But is it such a complex case? It has been made complicated by all those connected to the diary being less than liberal with the truth, and all the researchers and authors trying to seek the truth, but the real truth is never going to surface, to many people connected to this have lied for varying reasons, which again will never be fully known.”

As you rightly say, the case has been made complicated.
We have a ‘Diary’, it exists and it has not gone away yet. It’s either genuine or it’s an early hoax or it’s a later hoax. It’s written by Jack the Ripper or it’s not. It’s written by James Maybrick (who is Jack the Ripper) or it’s not, or it’s written by A N Other.
It is very unfortunate in having dodgy provenance due to the circumstance surrounding its appearance. We have the Mike Barrett forging it theory and then the theory of it being passed down through the family from Billy Graham via Ann and then via the man in the pub to Mike.
At the same time we have had the whispers of electricians finding it under floorboards at Battlecrease and again theories of Mike Barrett being involved.
The most ridiculous recent theory abounding currently is that Mike, having forged the ‘Diary’, then had it smuggled INTO Battlecrease House whilst electricians were working there so they could find it? It beggars belief sometimes.
I’m 100% certain that Mike was incapable of either forging the ‘Diary’ or having any part in the production of it.
Unfortunately, almost all those involved in the alleged line of provenance regarding the appearance of the ‘Diary’ are now deceased barring the electricians and Ann Graham and I believe that a lot of this tangled web could simply be cleared by Ann Graham if she would be honest in her account.

“To me it is relatively simple to understand, and yes it would be nice to know conclusively who forged the diary, because it is a forgery and even without the admissions of Barrett there is enough hard facts to dismiss it being the work of James Maybrick confessing to being Jack the Ripper.”

Well, to me personally it is relatively simple to understand, because it is not a forgery and I believe it was written by James Maybrick.
Each to their own, but I have to stand with Ike and the silent majority.

The naysayers are always going to jump on the provenance as reason to bury the diary as theres very little else they have.

There was a programme on back in sep/oct, "Britains lost masterpieces", works of art by the worlds greatest artists, buried in store rooms, covered up never to see the light of day simply because the provenance has been lost. Great lengths, time and expertise were used to prove the pieces of art got the recognition they deserve.

Theres a few doing the same with the diary, going out of their way to find that one piece of information that unlocks the truth, simply remaining open minded and doing some real detective work..

And for that what do we get in return.... mud slinging ...poor show IMO

[John Wheat]

You think a majority think it is genuine?

In all honesty I think you are standing with the mouthy minority.

Yes two people is not a majority.

[DirectorDave]

Each to their own, but I have to stand with Ike and the silent majority.

You think a majority think it is genuine?

In all honesty I think you are standing with the mouthy minority.

[Spider]

“But is it such a complex case? It has been made complicated by all those connected to the diary being less than liberal with the truth, and all the researchers and authors trying to seek the truth, but the real truth is never going to surface, to many people connected to this have lied for varying reasons, which again will never be fully known.”

As you rightly say, the case has been made complicated.
We have a ‘Diary’, it exists and it has not gone away yet. It’s either genuine or it’s an early hoax or it’s a later hoax. It’s written by Jack the Ripper or it’s not. It’s written by James Maybrick (who is Jack the Ripper) or it’s not, or it’s written by A N Other.
It is very unfortunate in having dodgy provenance due to the circumstance surrounding its appearance. We have the Mike Barrett forging it theory and then the theory of it being passed down through the family from Billy Graham via Ann and then via the man in the pub to Mike.
At the same time we have had the whispers of electricians finding it under floorboards at Battlecrease and again theories of Mike Barrett being involved.
The most ridiculous recent theory abounding currently is that Mike, having forged the ‘Diary’, then had it smuggled INTO Battlecrease House whilst electricians were working there so they could find it? It beggars belief sometimes.
I’m 100% certain that Mike was incapable of either forging the ‘Diary’ or having any part in the production of it.
Unfortunately, almost all those involved in the alleged line of provenance regarding the appearance of the ‘Diary’ are now deceased barring the electricians and Ann Graham and I believe that a lot of this tangled web could simply be cleared by Ann Graham if she would be honest in her account.

“To me it is relatively simple to understand, and yes it would be nice to know conclusively who forged the diary, because it is a forgery and even without the admissions of Barrett there is enough hard facts to dismiss it being the work of James Maybrick confessing to being Jack the Ripper.”

Well, to me personally it is relatively simple to understand, because it is not a forgery and I believe it was written by James Maybrick.
Each to their own, but I have to stand with Ike and the silent majority.