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

[rjpalmer]

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.

[John Wheat]

Hi John G.

You are absolutely correct. None of these scenarios makes sense and there is absolutely no proof that any of them happened. Any provenance for the Diary is absent.

Best regards

Chris

That is all key as far as I'm concerned.

[ChrisGeorge]

A modern forgery. Basically because the diary's provenance is non existent. For instance, according to Anne's bizarre version of events, it was passed down through the generations of her family, for almost a century, like some incredibly valuable Victorian heirloom. And yet, during this time nobody bothers to try and sell it, or to get valued or authenticated. In fact, the only person who even seems to have bothered reading it was Anne herself. And then, wait for it...Anne suddenly has the bright idea of covertly persuading TD to give it to her husband in the hope that he would turn it into a novel, and in order to boost his self esteem! To add to this nonsense, Anne's father then made the incredible claim that Florence Maybrick was his grandmother. Of course, not a shred of credible evidence is offered in support of this outlandish assertion.

We then have the alternative version. Apparently one or more electricians discovered the diary at Battlecrease and then gave it/sold it to Mike, who then promptly contacts a literary agent the same day. Of course, not a scrap of evidence is offered in support of this theory. For instance, Mike had no known connection to the electricians and, in fact, vehemently denied knowing them.

And how on earth does this scenario make sense anyway? I mean, presumably the electrician bunks off work and then somehow, on the same day, he just gives the diary to Mike, a man that he's apparently never met, despite the fact that he considers it to be so potentially valuable that he also fits in a trip to Liverpool University, with seemingly the intention of getting it valued/authenticated.

Or perhaps he just bumps into Mike in the Saddle on the night of the discovery. Mike then phones directory enquiries and says something like, "You're not going to believe this but I've just bought Jack the Ripper's diary from some stranger in the pub-poor fool had no idea what it may be worth. Of course, I've managed to fully authenticate it over a few pints...please put me through to a random literary agent."

Hilarious!

Hi John G.

You are absolutely correct. None of these scenarios makes sense and there is absolutely no proof that any of them happened. Any provenance for the Diary is absent.

Best regards

Chris

[John Wheat]

That's a whole lot of very well made points my friend.

I as well as others commend you for that post.

I am always astounded that this carries on after 25 years. To read the posts on the subject only Ike is openly still arguing that JM was the author.
Given there is no actual evidence that he was the author and people such as Caz believe it to be not by his hand, why oh why is it still debated with such Passion?

Unless by JM it is totally irrelevant.


Steve

I agree Steve. I'm 99 per cent sure the diary was written by Mike Barrett. Even if it wasn't written by Mike Barrett. It certainly wasn't written by James Maybrick.

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

'A bunch of keyboard detectives' - Steven, I have some ointment you can put on your saddle-sore backside when you decide to climb down off your high-horse.

Whether or not someone has 'been there witnessing' the unfolding of various narratives has literally no bearing on their ability to spot logical and narrative absurdities in a given story. We're supposed to believe that a family had the diary of a famous murder victim in their possession for years - a diary in which he sensationally details the fact that he is also Jack the friggin Ripper - and they don't tell anyone about it!? They don't publicize it!? They don't cash in? They don't make any attempt to get it valued or authenticated? They don't notice the media Ripper-fest in 1988 and decide to tell someone that, yeah, we actually know who he was and we have his diary in the sideboard at home??!! The one thing they decide to do with it is pass it on covertly to a bored unemployed family member in the hope that he might turn it into a novel and boost his self-esteem!!!??? Why turn it into a novel? You OWN JACK THE RIPPER'S DIARY!!!

It is absurd on its face, preposterous, utterly false, and I frankly don't care who has met which party and had coffee with them, it's an unbelievable story.

And besides: if Keith has become personally involved, talked with these people, and used to hold Anne's story the most likely, but then changed his mind and now believes the floorboards story most likely - which is a complete change - then what special extra credibility does that give him? He believed one thing likely, now he believes a completely different thing most likely, but that's ok, because he met these people (some of whom must inescapably have been lying to him through their teeth) and we armchair detectives haven't?! Really, that's what counts to you? That's thoroughly effing dismal, mate.

(None of that is any sort of attack on Keith Skinner, whose work I have appreciated for many years, and for whom I have nothing but the highest respect; it's merely an attack on this "I trust Keith because he met them and you didn't" line of reasoning.)

great post and points. plus someone who gets so personally involved could get snookered in so to speak, along with having a vested interest.

[Elamarna]

'A bunch of keyboard detectives' - Steven, I have some ointment you can put on your saddle-sore backside when you decide to climb down off your high-horse.

Whether or not someone has 'been there witnessing' the unfolding of various narratives has literally no bearing on their ability to spot logical and narrative absurdities in a given story. We're supposed to believe that a family had the diary of a famous murder victim in their possession for years - a diary in which he sensationally details the fact that he is also Jack the friggin Ripper - and they don't tell anyone about it!? They don't publicize it!? They don't cash in? They don't make any attempt to get it valued or authenticated? They don't notice the media Ripper-fest in 1988 and decide to tell someone that, yeah, we actually know who he was and we have his diary in the sideboard at home??!! The one thing they decide to do with it is pass it on covertly to a bored unemployed family member in the hope that he might turn it into a novel and boost his self-esteem!!!??? Why turn it into a novel? You OWN JACK THE RIPPER'S DIARY!!!

It is absurd on its face, preposterous, utterly false, and I frankly don't care who has met which party and had coffee with them, it's an unbelievable story.

And besides: if Keith has become personally involved, talked with these people, and used to hold Anne's story the most likely, but then changed his mind and now believes the floorboards story most likely - which is a complete change - then what special extra credibility does that give him? He believed one thing likely, now he believes a completely different thing most likely, but that's ok, because he met these people (some of whom must inescapably have been lying to him through their teeth) and we armchair detectives haven't?! Really, that's what counts to you? That's thoroughly effing dismal, mate.

(None of that is any sort of attack on Keith Skinner, whose work I have appreciated for many years, and for whom I have nothing but the highest respect; it's merely an attack on this "I trust Keith because he met them and you didn't" line of reasoning.)

That's a whole lot of very well made points my friend.

I as well as others commend you for that post.

I am always astounded that this carries on after 25 years. To read the posts on the subject only Ike is openly still arguing that JM was the author.
Given there is no actual evidence that he was the author and people such as Caz believe it to be not by his hand, why oh why is it still debated with such Passion?

Unless by JM it is totally irrelevant.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Of Course Keith's views should be highly respected, although the fact that he's changed his mind over the years demonstrates what a complex case this is.

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.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DirectorDave]

Excellent post, Henry.

I actually stood up and applauded after reading it.

[Sam Flynn]

Excellent post, Henry.

[Henry Flower]

To be fair, I don't think anyone claimed that. My understanding is that Anne claimed it was given to Billy Graham in a trunk with other effects left to him by his Grandmother. He took no interest in it, and he eventually gave it to Anne who also had no interest in it until she had the idea of giving it to Mike via Tony. You don't believe the story, fair enough, but it was Keith Skinner's favoured version of events until the 'Battlecrease provenance' became more compelling to him. Personally, I put more stock in the opinion of someone who's been there witnessing the unfolding of the Diary saga first hand, and speaking to all those involved, for 25 years than a bunch of keyboard detectives on an internet forum.

'A bunch of keyboard detectives' - Steven, I have some ointment you can put on your saddle-sore backside when you decide to climb down off your high-horse.

Whether or not someone has 'been there witnessing' the unfolding of various narratives has literally no bearing on their ability to spot logical and narrative absurdities in a given story. We're supposed to believe that a family had the diary of a famous murder victim in their possession for years - a diary in which he sensationally details the fact that he is also Jack the friggin Ripper - and they don't tell anyone about it!? They don't publicize it!? They don't cash in? They don't make any attempt to get it valued or authenticated? They don't notice the media Ripper-fest in 1988 and decide to tell someone that, yeah, we actually know who he was and we have his diary in the sideboard at home??!! The one thing they decide to do with it is pass it on covertly to a bored unemployed family member in the hope that he might turn it into a novel and boost his self-esteem!!!??? Why turn it into a novel? You OWN JACK THE RIPPER'S DIARY!!!

It is absurd on its face, preposterous, utterly false, and I frankly don't care who has met which party and had coffee with them, it's an unbelievable story.

And besides: if Keith has become personally involved, talked with these people, and used to hold Anne's story the most likely, but then changed his mind and now believes the floorboards story most likely - which is a complete change - then what special extra credibility does that give him? He believed one thing likely, now he believes a completely different thing most likely, but that's ok, because he met these people (some of whom must inescapably have been lying to him through their teeth) and we armchair detectives haven't?! Really, that's what counts to you? That's thoroughly effing dismal, mate.

(None of that is any sort of attack on Keith Skinner, whose work I have appreciated for many years, and for whom I have nothing but the highest respect; it's merely an attack on this "I trust Keith because he met them and you didn't" line of reasoning.)

[John G]

To be fair, I don't think anyone claimed that. My understanding is that Anne claimed it was given to Billy Graham in a trunk with other effects left to him by his Grandmother. He took no interest in it, and he eventually gave it to Anne who also had no interest in it until she had the idea of giving it to Mike via Tony. You don't believe the story, fair enough, but it was Keith Skinner's favoured version of events until the 'Battlecrease provenance' became more compelling to him. Personally, I put more stock in the opinion of someone who's been there witnessing the unfolding of the Diary saga first hand, and speaking to all those involved, for 25 years than a bunch of keyboard detectives on an internet forum.

Okay, but the whole story of Anne surreptitiously giving the diary to Mike, her husband at the time, via Tony with the intention of boosting his self esteem, or in the hope that he would turn it into a novel, seems bizarre to me. And why did she think it would be suitable material to turn into a novel, unless she saw some value in the diary? In which case, why no attempt to get it valued or authenticated?

Of Course Keith's views should be highly respected, although the fact that he's changed his mind over the years demonstrates what a complex case this is.

I'm also not sure what Keith's current views are. Does he think the diary is a modern forgery? Does he believe the diary was unearthed at Battlecrease? Because there isn't one iota of evidence to support the latter option-none of the electricians, for instance claimed to have discovered the diary at Battlecrease. And how did it then get into Mike's possession on the same day?

[StevenOwl]

A modern forgery. Basically because the diary's provenance is non existent. For instance, according to Anne's bizarre version of events, it was passed down through the generations of her family, for almost a century, like some incredibly valuable Victorian heirloom. And yet, during this time nobody bothers to try and sell it, or to get valued or authenticated.

To be fair, I don't think anyone claimed that. My understanding is that Anne claimed it was given to Billy Graham in a trunk with other effects left to him by his Grandmother. He took no interest in it, and he eventually gave it to Anne who also had no interest in it until she had the idea of giving it to Mike via Tony. You don't believe the story, fair enough, but it was Keith Skinner's favoured version of events until the 'Battlecrease provenance' became more compelling to him. Personally, I put more stock in the opinion of someone who's been there witnessing the unfolding of the Diary saga first hand, and speaking to all those involved, for 25 years than a bunch of keyboard detectives on an internet forum.

[John G]

A modern forgery. Basically because the diary's provenance is non existent. For instance, according to Anne's bizarre version of events, it was passed down through the generations of her family, for almost a century, like some incredibly valuable Victorian heirloom. And yet, during this time nobody bothers to try and sell it, or to get valued or authenticated. In fact, the only person who even seems to have bothered reading it was Anne herself. And then, wait for it...Anne suddenly has the bright idea of covertly persuading TD to give it to her husband in the hope that he would turn it into a novel, and in order to boost his self esteem! To add to this nonsense, Anne's father then made the incredible claim that Florence Maybrick was his grandmother. Of course, not a shred of credible evidence is offered in support of this outlandish assertion.

We then have the alternative version. Apparently one or more electricians discovered the diary at Battlecrease and then gave it/sold it to Mike, who then promptly contacts a literary agent the same day. Of course, not a scrap of evidence is offered in support of this theory. For instance, Mike had no known connection to the electricians and, in fact, vehemently denied knowing them.

And how on earth does this scenario make sense anyway? I mean, presumably the electrician bunks off work and then somehow, on the same day, he just gives the diary to Mike, a man that he's apparently never met, despite the fact that he considers it to be so potentially valuable that he also fits in a trip to Liverpool University, with seemingly the intention of getting it valued/authenticated.

Or perhaps he just bumps into Mike in the Saddle on the night of the discovery. Mike then phones directory enquiries and says something like, "You're not going to believe this but I've just bought Jack the Ripper's diary from some stranger in the pub-poor fool had no idea what it may be worth. Of course, I've managed to fully authenticate it over a few pints...please put me through to a random literary agent."

Hilarious!

[GUT]

George wrote the best ever Lennon & McCartney song according to Frank.

There could be something in what you say.

[DirectorDave]

George wrote the best ever Lennon & McCartney song according to Frank.