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

[caz]

I honestly don't think that to be the case, Herlock. My great grandfather scratched his own initial on his signet ring, in a space no bigger than half a centimetre square. He had no experience of engraving at all, and no access to special tools. Gold is a soft metal, with about the same hardness on the Mohs scale as aluminium, and can be scored with something as mundane as an iron nail.

But, Gareth, aren't you missing the point? Obviously someone was originally able to scratch crude but legible words and initials inside the watch, and presumably with no great difficulty. Nobody's questioning this [except possibly Abby Normal, who seemed to be sceptical about their very existence because I hadn't been able to see them myself in 2001 ].

The point is, when your great grandfather scratched his own initial on his ring [ouch, sounds painful], would he have been able to make it look, under a microscope, like he had not done it yesterday, but decades before he was even a twinkle in your great great grandfather's eye?

This is our main concern here, not the initial [ha ha] difficulty of scratching initials into soft metal surfaces. But while we're here, do you think your example from personal experience suggests your great grandfather could also have scratched a passable forgery of your great grandmother's signature, using her maiden name, into a slightly larger soft metal surface, and then done a professional job of giving it the appearance of many decades of wear when viewed under a microscope?

If it was all such a doddle, why haven't we seen other Maybrick artefacts coming out of the brickwork, such as a gold ring that turns out to be brass... er, bad example there. How about a couple of brass rings with AC scratched on them, or a hankie embroidered with the initials FM complete with traces of arsenic and a note attached reading "the whore will suffer", in a suitably diary-like hand?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As for its being found under the floorboards, when this is proved, I'll believe it! But as hardly anything concerning the Diary has been [I]proved, I don't think this is about to happen. And I just cannot visualise, try as I might, Mike Barrett (or anyone else, for that matter) getting onto a literary agency the same day that the floorboards were lifted - unless of course this is another coincidence. Or, of course, this is precisely what did happen - but I don't think it did. Feldman IIRC said that he didn't think that whatever the electricians took to Liverpool University, it wasn't the Diary.

Morning Graham,

Well we know the two events coincided: the floorboards being lifted [in the right room of the right house as far as any diary supposedly written by Maybrick and left there would have been concerned]; and Mike's first contact with a literary agency, both on March 9th 1992.

Some coincidence, supposing none of the electricians knew about any such diary in 1992 or took anything from the house; didn't know Mike from Adam or anything about his call to an agent; and only when Feldman came along did one or two of them invent a tale from whole cloth about the diary, currently making the headlines, being found under floorboards - not in 1992, but way back in 1989.

Feldman gave up on this line of enquiry as soon as money entered the equation, assuming the electricians were only out to con him. He would not have appreciated that one little bit, so it's not surprising he didn't believe they ever had the diary to take anywhere. I don't think he ever knew - or asked - when Mike had first made contact with Doreen. Why would it have struck him as relevant? Eddie's claim went back to a find in 1989; Mike's was that Tony D gave it to him in 1991 and he had been researching it ever since. Even if Feldman worked out from the time sheets that some floorboards were lifted in March 1992, by employees of Portus & Rhodes, there was no reason for him to connect this event with the diary or with what Mike might have been doing with it around the same time. Nobody else was even suggesting a possible connection. Had Eddie said bluntly to Feldy in early 1993: "Look, here's my daily work sheet for March 9th 1992, showing I helped out in Maybrick's old bedroom by lifting the floorboards first thing, and I know for a fact that Mike called an agency that same afternoon about the diary I seen and shown him down the Saddle that lunchtime. Check with the agency if you don't believe me. Now what's my confession worth?"

Somehow, if that had happened, I doubt we'd ever have heard Anne's 'in the family' story.

As with Murphy and the watch scratches, one can see all manner of things without observing and seeing any meaning there. Feldman saw no significance in the timing of events because there was nobody willing to point the timing, or indeed the events themselves, out to him.

Love,

Caz
X

[DirectorDave]

Your argument regarding alcohol is self defeating: you cannot argue that the reason Mike was deemed incapable of authoring the diary, by those who interviwed him, was on account of his alcoholism, whilst at the same time contending that the same condition transformed him into a creative genius.

"creative genius"...getting a bit silly now eh?

The people interviewing him do not know the state of his condition at the time of forging the diary and even if they did being an alcoholic still would not rule him out.

The articles written for the magazine were trivial in nature. And of course it's relevant as to what extent they were his own work, i.e. they may have been heavily edited by his wife.

Yes they were trivial, that was the nature of the magazine so the articles in themselves only point to the writer's competency...he carried out his brief.

What does it matter how much editing Ann had to do? If she was proof reader for his articles she would proof read his forgery work?

In a long line of strawmen arguments on this subject "his wife tidied up his articles" is the silliest.

[John G]

With "Nest of Forgers" I'm not insinuating a large number of individuals but the sophistication of the conspiracy.



"One Study"....mmm OK I'll take it....22% that does not sound like an insignificant impairment to me.



The stroke may be one of the reasons many right Barrett off, but look at John Humble a man probably below the standing of Barrett able to fool the police into going on a wild goose chase and hold the country in terror...did he look any more capable than Barrett?

Alcohol again, OK alcohol prevents Barrett writing it but arsenic enables Maybrick to write it.

Booze and drugs have a long association with the creative arts if they are inhibitors to the creative process there seems to be plenty examples of stuff getting through....the Beatles from Rubber Soul onwards for example.




Yes I'm saying this was not some eutopic conspiracy where a group of experienced forgers democratically elected a master forger....it was more Steptoe than Shakespeare....they probably come up with the idea watching Lovejoy over a fish supper.

I fail to see how Mike's literary skills limit his involvement....a published journalist in a national magazine, and whether his wife is his proof reader or not is neither here nor there.

The Mike Barrett photoalbum is perhaps a microcosm of the whole Ripper case....a need to see sophistication and design when little are present.

Mike stated in his original affidavit that three people were involved in the forgery. Assuming that's correct, who knows what the extent of his involvement was? Of course, he boasts about have the primary role, that of "master forger". But then again, he once claimed to have been a secret agent as well!

[John G]

With "Nest of Forgers" I'm not insinuating a large number of individuals but the sophistication of the conspiracy.



"One Study"....mmm OK I'll take it....22% that does not sound like an insignificant impairment to me.



The stroke may be one of the reasons many right Barrett off, but look at John Humble a man probably below the standing of Barrett able to fool the police into going on a wild goose chase and hold the country in terror...did he look any more capable than Barrett?

Alcohol again, OK alcohol prevents Barrett writing it but arsenic enables Maybrick to write it.

Booze and drugs have a long association with the creative arts if they are inhibitors to the creative process there seems to be plenty examples of stuff getting through....the Beatles from Rubber Soul onwards for example.




Yes I'm saying this was not some eutopic conspiracy where a group of experienced forgers democratically elected a master forger....it was more Steptoe than Shakespeare....they probably come up with the idea watching Lovejoy over a fish supper.

I fail to see how Mike's literary skills limit his involvement....a published journalist in a national magazine, and whether his wife is his proof reader or not is neither here nor there.

The Mike Barrett photoalbum is perhaps a microcosm of the whole Ripper case....a need to see sophistication and design when little are present.

"Prevalence" is a word that means "extensiveness" or "frequency": see dictionary.thefreedictionary.com It does not therefore refer to intensity, so the study concluded that around one in five individuals, who had suffered a stroke, had a medium to long term cognitive impairment.

Your argument regarding alcohol is self defeating: you cannot argue that the reason Mike was deemed incapable of authoring the diary, by those who interviwed him, was on account of his alcoholism, whilst at the same time contending that the same condition transformed him into a creative genius.

The articles written for the magazine were trivial in nature. And of course it's relevant as to what extent they were his own work, i.e. they may have been heavily edited by his wife.

Mike stated in his original affidavit that there people were involved in the conspiracy; assuming that's correct, who knows which one of them had the "master forger" role.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth,

Surely a highly skilled person would have been needed

I honestly don't think that to be the case, Herlock. My great grandfather scratched his own initial on his signet ring, in a space no bigger than half a centimetre square. He had no experience of engraving at all, and no access to special tools. Gold is a soft metal, with about the same hardness on the Mohs scale as aluminium, and can be scored with something as mundane as an iron nail.

[Graham]

If the ledger was originally in the Maybricks' possession, why would a forger have removed those pages from the front? If it had been a Maybrick family scrapbook/photo-album, or at least contained non-family artefacts (e.g. press cuttings or other ephemera) that dated the book to 1889 or earlier, surely they would have been left in to support its provenance? I'd suggest that the most likely explanation for the missing pages is that they contained evidence which not only showed the book had not been a Maybrick possession, but placed it at a later point in time

Indeed Sam. I never actually stated - only speculated - that it contained anything, photos or otherwise, which could have linked it to the Maybrick family. Whatever it contained, the hoaxer either didn't want it, or those pages had been removed before the hoaxer obtained the book. I seem to recall reading - not in any work about the Diary but in a book about the Maybrick Case - that certain items went missing from Battlecrease before and after Florrie's arrest, and that the honesty of at least one of the servants was suspect. All I am suggesting is that IF the book came out of Battlecrease it was more likely - in my humble opinion - to have been abstracted at a point well in the past and not a little over 25 years ago when work was being carried out at the house.

It seems unlikely, reading the posts here on this Forum, that there will ever be any agreement, or further solid positive evidence, forthcoming with regard to The Floorboards, The Electricians And Mike Barrett. (Hey, could be a Peter Greenaway work!!). As I and others have suggested, why on earth would a dying man wish to secrete anything under the floorboards? And how could he have achieved it anyway?

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely someone with the requisite skills (and tools) would have made a rather better job than the spider's-scrawl we actually see? If, on the other hand, the forger was double-bluffing (e.g. "Maybrick wasn't an engraver, so it doesn't have to be tidy"), why have a skilled/tooled person do it anyway?

Hi Gareth,

Surely a highly skilled person would have been needed. I know one friend of mine for example who could have engraved the writing on the watch (not that I’m accusing him of course ) but he wouldn’t have had the skill to do it so that a scientist wouldn’t immediately have been able to tell that it had been done recently. That’s where the real skill would have been required.
Of course we have no way of knowing if Maybrick had enough skill to even do the engraving in the first place. If he did though (and obviously it’s a pretty massive ‘if’) it could possible be explained as the work of an amateur rather than a fully skilled craftsman?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Agreed also Sam

[John Wheat]

If the ledger was originally in the Maybricks' possession, why would a forger have removed those pages from the front? If it had been a Maybrick family scrapbook/photo-album, or at least contained non-family artefacts (e.g. press cuttings or other ephemera) that dated the book to 1889 or earlier, surely they would have been left in to support its provenance? I'd suggest that the most likely explanation for the missing pages is that they contained evidence which not only showed the book had not been a Maybrick possession, but placed it at a later point in time.

Hi Sam

I agree with what your saying the reason a number of pages have been torn out the diary is because they would expose it as a forgery.

Cheers John

[Graham]

If the ledger was originally in the Maybricks' possession, why would a forger have removed those pages from the front? If it had been a Maybrick family scrapbook/photo-album, or at least contained non-family artefacts (e.g. press cuttings or other ephemera) that dated the book to 1889 or earlier, surely they would have been left in to support its provenance? I'd suggest that the most likely explanation for the missing pages is that they contained evidence which not only showed the book had not been a Maybrick possession, but placed it at a later point in time.

Sam, Caz,

I agree with you all the way, Sam - my post was, as I said, mere speculation based on the fact that Maybrick was an arsenic addict and the fact that traces of bone black, a known antidote for arsenic poising, were found in the spine. I recall reading that one of the experts who examined the book said that there were traces of what appeared to be glue on one of the pages, and also what was described as a fragment of a photograph. What is also a fact is that we don't know for certain if it was used as a photo album - we don't know what it was used for, but it seems to me that the consensus over the years is that it was a photo album. I was only speculating that the book may have been abstracted from Battlecrease via some means other than being lifted from beneath the floorboards.

As for its being found under the floorboards, when this is proved, I'll believe it! But as hardly anything concerning the Diary has been [I]proved, I don't think this is about to happen. And I just cannot visualise, try as I might, Mike Barrett (or anyone else, for that matter) getting onto a literary agency the same day that the floorboards were lifted - unless of course this is another coincidence. Or, of course, this is precisely what did happen - but I don't think it did. Feldman IIRC said that he didn't think that whatever the electricians took to Liverpool University, it wasn't the Diary.

As just about every other discussion point concerning the Diary is speculative, I thought I'd have a go, that's all. Keeps me occupied during my retirement......

Graham

[caz]

Surely someone with the requisite skills (and tools) would have made a rather better job than the spider's-scrawl we actually see? If, on the other hand, the forger was double-bluffing (e.g. "Maybrick wasn't an engraver, so it doesn't have to be tidy"), why have a skilled/tooled person do it anyway?

Hi Gareth,

I think the requisite skills and tools refer to what would have been involved in making recent scratch marks [which would have been all the scratches on that inner surface] appear thoroughly worn and many decades old to two independent experts when examined under a microscope. I'm not sure anyone has suggested the markings themselves - the words and initials - resemble the work of a professional engraver, nor indeed why they should.

But how easy do you think it would be for anyone to 'carve' their own signature in the way Maybrick's was, and make it perfectly legible, never mind try someone else's and hope to make it look at the first attempt like the man's written signature?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Graham,

I'm not sure why it would be 'generally agreed' that the guardbook, or scrapbook, was originally used as a photo album. Is there any evidence for this apart from what Mike Barrett claimed?

Also, how have you arrived at being 'pretty certain' it wasn't found in Battlecrease the day the floorboards in Maybrick's old bedroom were lifted and Mike made his first call to the literary agency - the first ever documented mention of the diary's existence?

If a certain valuable gold watch was found with this old book, the thirsty electrician would have got more than a bit of beer money for flogging the former, no questions asked. The book would not have been so easy to shift for an instant payday, so while Mike may have offered to put feelers out on his behalf, there'd have been no guarantees. Even when Doreen Montgomery expressed her interest in seeing it, there was every chance she'd turn it down on sight, if it looked like the ink was barely dry or she just didn't feel the thing was 'right'. Still no guarantee of interesting a publisher, and one might never have been found if Robert Smith had not taken a punt, or if he was put off by negative test results.

Once Mike had got Doreen's attention, the next step would be to take the diary off the electrician's hands so he could show it to her in London. At that point there was no money on the table yet, and might never be any, so: "Okay, Bongo, give us £25 and see what you can do with it. You didn't get it from me, right, but if you get rich you owe me. Just don't leave the country".

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I certainly think that it’s rather optimistic to suggest that it’s something that anyone with a few tools could accomplish. I don’t know, maybe Albert Johnson knew someone with the requisite skills?

Surely someone with the requisite skills (and tools) would have made a rather better job than the spider's-scrawl we actually see? If, on the other hand, the forger was double-bluffing (e.g. "Maybrick wasn't an engraver, so it doesn't have to be tidy"), why have a skilled/tooled person do it anyway?

[Sam Flynn]

My speculation is that perhaps the 'diary book' used, as is now generally agreed, originally as a photo album, was part of the Maybrick household possessions, and the bone black got into it as he was snorting the stuff while looking at his family photos, or even gumming a few in.

If the ledger was originally in the Maybricks' possession, why would a forger have removed those pages from the front? If it had been a Maybrick family scrapbook/photo-album, or at least contained non-family artefacts (e.g. press cuttings or other ephemera) that dated the book to 1889 or earlier, surely they would have been left in to support its provenance? I'd suggest that the most likely explanation for the missing pages is that they contained evidence which not only showed the book had not been a Maybrick possession, but placed it at a later point in time.