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

[Sam Flynn]

Was it Albert or one of his colleagues who first noticed the inscriptions? I can't remember offhand.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

the Maybrick Case was the subject of a 1970 BBC TV series called 'Wicked Women', which I remember quite well. As a result, I read a book about the Case, but can't remember which one! I'm surprised your Scouse friends had never heard of the case, but assume they must be of a generation of, er, more tender years compared with me.....

Hi Graham,

The pub landlord was probably only in his forties, but my old man's cousin and her husband are nearly 70.

Re: the Watch. I haven't read the books for a long time, so if I'm wrong here then by all means correct me. As I understand it, the Watch was bought by Albert Johnson from the Murphys in mid-1992, but it wasn't until nearly a year later he saw the scratches.

Yep, that's exactly right. Albert had admired it for the few weeks he had seen it in the shop window, finally having a win on the horses and buying it on 14th July 1992, to put away as an investment for his young grandchild. It was the following summer that he took it out again and the discovery was made.

Murphy said that he had bought the watch from his father-in-law Mr Stuart (?) about 2 years prior to selling it to Mr Johnson. Mr Stuart (?) as I recall said that he had had the Watch for maybe 15 years before selling it to his son-in-law. Could Mr Stuart (?) recall from whom he had obtained the Watch?

I don't think Murphy's father-in-law could be questioned because he was suffering from dementia at the time. IIRC the story of how a stranger had come in and sold the watch to him all those years previously was told by the Murphys.

Also, am I correct in believing that Barrett never mentioned the Watch at all until its existence was made public, and so can I assume that he didn't know about it?

Not a word from either Barrett about any watch. I can only imagine what their reaction was when they learned of its existence! When I saw Anne and the Johnsons in the green room, for the televised Trial of JtR, hosted by Michael Grade and featuring Angela Rippon and Stewart Evans among others, I asked Anne, in all innocence, what she thought of the watch and what she had asked Albert and Val about it [who were standing nearby but not quite in earshot]. I was fully expecting her to be as interested as I was in its origins, but she just looked rather uncomfortable and made some excuse to hurry off, as if she was worried I was going to engage the three of them in conversation about it. I was left thinking that something wasn't right, but didn't have a clue what it was.

I just wonder if the Watch had actually 'inspired' some previous owner to concoct the Diary, given that no-one thus far has been able to prove either the Battlecrease or Mike Barrett claimed provenances.

I have little doubt the two are - or were - linked, and my hunch is that you are not far off. I wonder if the diary was written by someone who knew about the markings inside the watch, and wanted to draw attention to them without coming forward himself to admit they were there. Was the plan for someone to find both items, so the faint markings inside the watch would stand the best chance of being discovered as a result?

I can't easily get past the coincidence of the diary emerging and being snapped up by a publisher, in pretty much the same time frame as the watch appearing in the shop window and being snapped up by Albert.

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

Most of the discussions around the "Diary" seem to focus on it's supporters asking for conclusive proof that it is fake...that has went on so long that the argument for it being genuine has been lost in the fog.

I think the idea is we read the thing, ignore the handwriting and anachronisms and "Maybrick's words" are meant to convince us.

It's a Victorian book?, it's probably written with old ink? Beyond that I'm struggling to come up with anything for the "Genuine column".

Thanks Dave, it does seem the diary is most likely fake. But I guess the question is if Mike Barrett was the forger?

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

Welcome to the madhouse!

Yes, for my sins, I was one of the co-authors of Ripper Diary - The Inside Story, which was written to give a factual account of the first ten years since Mike Barrett introduced the diary to the world. It was never meant to include the authors' personal speculation about how, why and when the diary may have been created, or by whom - for starters we didn't think alike so it would have become a bit of a mess!

I hope the book doesn't read like the authors 'lean toward the authenticity' of the diary because neither Keith nor I think Maybrick wrote it. I didn't and don't accept that the evidence demonstrates it to be the work of either Mike Barrett or his ex wife, Anne Graham, or a joint effort, but we did try to include all the various claims and counter claims, opinions and conclusions of those at the centre of things from the start, and those who became involved along the way. The book was not about analysing the content of the diary for signs of fakery or authenticity - we let others do the talking on that score.

I hope that helps.

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you Caz.

If I have things straight, you are saying that the book was supposed to be an impartial, entertaining history of the diary and not an attempt to pass judgement on its authenticity or lack thereof. And that opinion on the subject even varied among you and your co-authors.

However, if forced to give an opinion, your personal opinion is actually more towards a forgery.

But you don't think the drunk Mike Barrett who claimed to have forged it in the early 90s was the actual forger, while others here are certain of it.

How does the debate about colloquialisms fit in? Do you think there is a strong possibility it was forged by a contemporary in Victorian times?

Thanks, and let me know if I have summarized incorrectly at all.

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

the Maybrick Case was the subject of a 1970 BBC TV series called 'Wicked Women', which I remember quite well. As a result, I read a book about the Case, but can't remember which one! I'm surprised your Scouse friends had never heard of the case, but assume they must be of a generation of, er, more tender years compared with me.....

Re: the Watch. I haven't read the books for a long time, so if I'm wrong here then by all means correct me. As I understand it, the Watch was bought by Albert Johnson from the Murphys in mid-1992, but it wasn't until nearly a year later he saw the scratches. Mr Murphy said that he had bought the watch from his father-in-law Mr Stuart (?) about 2 years prior to selling it to Mr Johnson. Mr Stuart (?) as I recall said that he had had the Watch for maybe 15 years before selling it to his son-in-law. Could Mr Stuart (?) recall from whom he had obtained the Watch? Also, am I correct in believing that Barrett never mentioned the Watch at all until its existence was made public, and so can I assume that he didn't know about it?

I just wonder if the Watch had actually 'inspired' some previous owner to concoct the Diary, given that no-one thus far has been able to prove either the Battlecrease or Mike Barrett claimed provenances.

Graham

[caz]

Indeed, Liverpudlians and avid true crime enthusiasts apart, I doubt that many of us would even have heard about Maybrick in any capacity if the diary hadn't surfaced.

I agree, Gareth. When I was in lovely Liverpool only last month, I mentioned Maybrick and the diary, in connection with my interest in Jack the Ripper, on two occasions: once to a Liverpudlian pub landlord, and the following day over lunch with two family members of my better half, who have lived all their lives in the Wirral. I got nothing but blank looks, as they'd never heard of Maybrick or the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Gareth

Time to put this to bed once and for all.
The OED (Oxford English dictionary) describes the use of 'I seen .." as colloquial or dialectual.
The earliest example in the OED is in fact from Philidelphia in 1796.
An English example is in the 1861 follow up book to 'Tom Brown's Schooldays' called 'Tom Brown's Oxford'.

I think all can be agreed that this puts the proposed 'Liverpool only' dialect to bed.

(Cyril Waterman was..I believe..from North London and of Jewish decent)

That just about cans the problem tight..Don't you think?
☺


Phil

Hi Phil,

Nobody said 'Liverpool only'.

So can we put that myth to bed please?

Thank you kindly.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It's highly unlikely that he'd have been mentioned in the same breath as the Ripper murders, if it hadn't been for the diary. Indeed, Liverpudlians and avid true crime enthusiasts apart, I doubt that many of us would even have heard about Maybrick in any capacity if the diary hadn't surfaced.

Hi Gareth,

But then there is the watch. There is no evidence that the diary had anything to do with Albert's decision to take his watch into work, where the markings inside were noticed by a colleague. There is also no evidence that Mike knew about the watch, or had ever met the Johnsons, when Albert contacted Robert Smith about his discovery. If the watch markings came first [which the forensic evidence would suggest], they presumably provided the inspiration for the diary.

Had the diary not been written, or had it been thrown in a skip or otherwise destroyed, and had the watch minus Mike Barrett come to light as it did, I don't think it would have been dismissed so lightly as a recent hoax and Maybrick would have entered the frame with a good deal more street cred and refused to budge.

The diary may have done the field a favour in that respect.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I have read thru a few of these threads regarding the Maybrick diary. I am still trying to piece together some of the basic facts. Any help would be appreciated.

Am I correct in assuming that the majority of opinion of Ripperologists is that the diary was a fake? And that there is supporting evidence including a confession and an ad
searching for a diary (acquiring a Victorian diary)? And then of course many of the terms and colloquialisms are debated and dated here as we try to determine what era it likely came from.

What is the counter argument to this? Is there a particular, separate reason to believe the diary was real or is it simply a case of negating the criticisms of it (perhaps Mike the confessor had ulterior motives and was incapable of creating it anyway etc) . If all the evidence that points towards a fake is discredited then I could see one could argue for its at least possible authenticity as there would be no particular reason to assume it's fake.

However there does seem to be quite a bit of separate evidence it was faked or am I incorrect here? Can anyone offer a brief synopsis?

Am I also correct in inferring that the authors of the interesting Ripper Diary Book (I believe the poster Caz is 1 of them?) while somewhat impartial lean toward the authenticity of the diary? Would James Maybrick be a top suspect without the diary's existence?

Thanks, sorry for rambling post

Hi AS,

Welcome to the madhouse!

Yes, for my sins, I was one of the co-authors of Ripper Diary - The Inside Story, which was written to give a factual account of the first ten years since Mike Barrett introduced the diary to the world. It was never meant to include the authors' personal speculation about how, why and when the diary may have been created, or by whom - for starters we didn't think alike so it would have become a bit of a mess!

I hope the book doesn't read like the authors 'lean toward the authenticity' of the diary because neither Keith nor I think Maybrick wrote it. I didn't and don't accept that the evidence demonstrates it to be the work of either Mike Barrett or his ex wife, Anne Graham, or a joint effort, but we did try to include all the various claims and counter claims, opinions and conclusions of those at the centre of things from the start, and those who became involved along the way. The book was not about analysing the content of the diary for signs of fakery or authenticity - we let others do the talking on that score.

I hope that helps.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

[Yes, I know, you were just typing too quickly or didn't check before submitting. ]

Quite so

[caz]

Not in my experience, Caz. I've heard quasi-Cockneys in the Darftord/Bexley areas use the expression, and Phil has already posted that link to Peter Sellers' impression of a London actor using it. "I seen" - with its relatives, "I done", "I says" and "I goes" - seems to be present in the everyday speech of people of predominantly working-class cultures all over Britain, London included.

"I seen" isn't peculiarly Scouse, though, and that's never been my point. I believe that one or more lower-class (and, frankly, none-to-bright) people wrote the diary, and its containing the phrase "the whore seen her master" is perfectly congruent with that hypothesis.

And there's another of my pet hates, Gareth - writing 'to' when it should be 'too'. Extremely common among the lower orders.

[Yes, I know, you were just typing too quickly or didn't check before submitting. ]

Love,

Caz
X

[DirectorDave]

I'm reading the Ripper Diary book now so I will reserve judgement. I go in with an open mind. I would tend to think it was a forgery based on the things you detailed, but it is also hard for me to believe those in favor of its genuineness are totally without cause to think so?

Most of the discussions around the "Diary" seem to focus on it's supporters asking for conclusive proof that it is fake...that has went on so long that the argument for it being genuine has been lost in the fog.

I think the idea is we read the thing, ignore the handwriting and anachronisms and "Maybrick's words" are meant to convince us.

It's a Victorian book?, it's probably written with old ink? Beyond that I'm struggling to come up with anything for the "Genuine column".

[AmericanSherlock]

It's highly unlikely that he'd have been mentioned in the same breath as the Ripper murders, if it hadn't been for the diary. Indeed, Liverpudlians and avid true crime enthusiasts apart, I doubt that many of us would even have heard about Maybrick in any capacity if the diary hadn't surfaced.

Thanks Sam, that's interesting. If Maybrick wasn't a great suspect before the diaries surfaced, I would tend to think this increases the odds that it was a forgery. (If you think about it in a combined odds sort of a way.) Then again, you could argue the opposite, that he wouldn't be a good "choice" for a forger, being someone who was not a top suspect at the time the diaries surfaced!

Overall, I have to think the lack of other evidence against Maybrick at least relative to some of the main suspects makes it more likely the diary is a fake.

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, although amoung the plethora of suspects James Maybrick, due to the Diary is favoured by a significant minority of Ripperologists.

(That is taken from the (Dodgy) poll on here and my own experience of the field, we have not held an official Ripper Referendum yet!)



Lots of evidence....not in Maybrick's Handwriting, Handwriting looks modern (imo), a couple of debated anachronisms, terrible provenance, confession of forgery (retracted), pages missing suggesting it was something else before this "diary"....to name a few.

I'll leave the case for the defence of this ex-photoalbum to it's disciples.

Thanks Dave, that was informative. Yes, that was my impression that while most think the diary is a forgery, that among the minority that believe it to be genuine, there is an ardent level of support for his candidacy. Sort of like Walter Sickert fans. A cult level of support.

I'm reading the Ripper Diary book now so I will reserve judgement. I go in with an open mind. I would tend to think it was a forgery based on the things you detailed, but it is also hard for me to believe those in favor of its genuineness are totally without cause to think so?

[Phil Carter]

Not in my experience, Caz. I've heard quasi-Cockneys in the Darftord/Bexley areas use the expression, and Phil has already posted that link to Peter Sellers' impression of a London actor using it. "I seen" - with its relatives, "I done", "I says" and "I goes" - seems to be present in the everyday speech of people of predominantly working-class cultures all over Britain, London included.

"I seen" isn't peculiarly Scouse, though, and that's never been my point. I believe that one or more lower-class (and, frankly, none-to-bright) people wrote the diary, and its containing the phrase "the whore seen her master" is perfectly congruent with that hypothesis.

Hello Gareth

Time to put this to bed once and for all.
The OED (Oxford English dictionary) describes the use of 'I seen .." as colloquial or dialectual.
The earliest example in the OED is in fact from Philidelphia in 1796.
An English example is in the 1861 follow up book to 'Tom Brown's Schooldays' called 'Tom Brown's Oxford'.

I think all can be agreed that this puts the proposed 'Liverpool only' dialect to bed.

(Cyril Waterman was..I believe..from North London and of Jewish decent)

That just about cans the problem tight..Don't you think?
☺


Phil