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

[Hunter]

Starting in mid sentence, mid thought and apparently mid journal suggest that part of the journal itself was torn out for some reason rather than pages used to mount photographs in. This indicates working around what the book actually was and its condition when procured.

Hope this is understandable?

[Abby Normal]

"...what they have in store for them they would stop this instant. But do I desire that?"

"desire that" is actually next line, but there it is.

what does:

Actually, is there anything in the diary text that could be seen as an excuse or explanation for the type of book used, its state of repair, the missing pages etc?...

have to do with this??

]"...what they have in store for them they would stop this instant. But do I desire that?"

[Hunter]

"...what they have in store for them they would stop this instant. But do I desire that?"

"desire that" is actually next line, but there it is.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz,



Yes, the very first line of text.

which is??

[Hunter]

Hi Caz,

Actually, is there anything in the diary text that could be seen as an excuse or explanation for the type of book used, its state of repair, the missing pages etc?...

Yes, the very first line of text.

[caz]

Looking at it the other way round, Gareth, the hoaxer seems to have had "Sir Jim" writing his thoughts while at the office, and not wanting anyone to find and read them [until he is near the end]. So there is a case for the hoaxer not choosing a standard diary [much less one with "James Maybrick's Personal Journal" engraved on its cover ], which might have tempted a nosey office boy to take a sneaky peek.

Actually, is there anything in the diary text that could be seen as an excuse or explanation for the type of book used, its state of repair, the missing pages etc?

This could be rather important for anyone who has latched onto the theory that the text was already prepared and ready to go before the physical book was found to house it.

How much editing of the original draft would have been needed, because an actual unused diary could not be obtained in time for Mike's meeting with Doreen on April 13th 1992?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Chris,

According to Feldman, one of the Battlecrease electricians intimated that he'd removed the diary from Battlecrease, although he ultimately concluded that said electrician would "lie for the right price."

Feldman then goes on to relate how Mike subsequently confronted the man and accused him of lying. Do you think that Feldman had any independent evidence for this supposed confrontation? Or was he wholly reliant on Unreliable Mike's account of the incident ?

Hi John,

Eddie Lyons confirmed that Mike had confronted him on his doorstep. What we can't know is exactly what they had to say to each other.

If we go by Feldman's timing for this incident, it could not have been long before Eddie and Mike were on good enough terms to agree to meet Robert Smith in the Saddle [June 1993], where Eddie claimed to have found 'a book' and thrown it in a skip.

We don't know much about this relationship between Eddie and Mike, but there is no evidence that Feldman knew Eddie's address in Fountains Road, so no evidence that he gave this information to Mike. But if the two already knew each other, this would explain how Mike knew where to find Eddie when he had a serious issue with him over his proposed 'confession'.

The fact remains that Eddie could only have worked in Battlecrease House in 1992, but put his claim to Feldman to have found the diary back to an impossible 1989. If he knew the floorboards came up in 1992, because he was there, did this give him the idea for a completely bogus claim? If he didn't know, because he wasn't there, it was presumably just a coincidence that the floorboards were lifted in 1992, on the same day JtR's diary got its first ever documented mention. Or did Eddie find the diary on that day, but put it back to 1989 to protect himself in the event of any formal accusation, and to allow for it to have passed to Devereux and thence to Mike by 1991?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Thanks for the information. To be honest, I was unaware that Anne claimed to have first seen the diary in the 1960s, although presumably her curiosity wasn't piqued to the extent that she thought about reading it! What I do find interesting is that most of the diary enthusiasts seem to have latched on to the under floorboards at Battlecrease scenario. Never mind that this version is in direct conflict with Anne's account, thereby effectively undermining, if not completely wrecking, any weak provenance the diary may have had!

Well doesn't that tell you that some of us want the truth, regardless of whether it's more inconvenient than convenient? If there is no reliable supporting evidence for one story [Anne/Devereux], and not enough - yet - for the others [Barrett hoax or Maybrick's floorboards], and none of them makes perfect sense alongside all the information we have to date, it's not a case of 'latching on' to the one we would most like to be true, but trying to find support for, or evidence against, each of the possible alternatives.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

But surely if he had serious concerns about the book he would have made at least a rudimentary attempt to get it authenticated. For instance, he could have visited some local antiques shops; or even taken a trip to the University of Liverpool-then again, maybe not (sorry Caz, the second option was meant to be an in-joke!)

If Mike had the diary at that point, yes. But what if he made his preliminary telephone enquiries before he had actually taken the diary off his electrician mate's hands for £25?

However, having embarked on the somewhat curious alternative of attempting to acquire an equivalent diary, and failing in the process, instead of berating himself for the omission of failing to stipulate a specific size range-" Oh dear Mike, that was a bit remiss of you", although he might have used slightly more colourful language!-he simply concludes that only an expert could have succeeded with such an Herculean task.

Not sure I grasp this, John. Why would size matter unless he needed this Victorian diary to forge JtR's? If he had already seen JtR's, judged it to be a diary from the date at the end, and just wanted to know how easy it would have been for a scallywag to obtain any diary from the 1880s with enough blank pages for a leg pull, the size of those pages need not have seemed an important consideration.

To be honest, Caz, I'm not really convinced. Mind you, on second thoughts this is unpredictable Mike we're talking about, and I'm beginning to think that where he's concerned almost any scenario seems possible!

You're just beginning to get the hang of how Mike operated. If you can do that you'll have to give the rest of us lessons.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I see what you mean, Chris, but surely a (near)contemporary hoaxer would have easily been able to source a Victorian notebook, or at least a sheaf of Victorian writing paper. Why would they resort to a Victorian scrapbook/photo album, unless this was all they could find at a given remove in time?

Looking at it the other way round, Gareth, the hoaxer seems to have had "Sir Jim" writing his thoughts while at the office, and not wanting anyone to find and read them [until he is near the end]. So there is a case for the hoaxer not choosing a standard diary [much less one with "James Maybrick's Personal Journal" engraved on its cover ], which might have tempted a nosey office boy to take a sneaky peek.

And as I grow tired of repeating, my late father, who could have afforded the most expensive diary in London, used to make do with scrap paper whenever he wanted to write stuff down, some of which I still have. He also insisted on re-using Christmas wrapping paper, which drove us kids mad. But we gained from his frugality in the long run.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes but the docmument is being called a "diary" as a way to label it as an entity. I am not sure that the writer ever says in the document that he (or she) was writing a diary. Rather the thing is, as we know, more a journal of thoughts, most of them jealous, petty, and bloody.

Best regards

Chris

Good point, Chris.

Mike seems to have been the first person to label this book a 'diary', perhaps after seeing the last entry, which is the only one dated.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hi Chris,

According to Feldman, one of the Battlecrease electricians intimated that he'd removed the diary from Battlecrease, although he ultimately concluded that said electrician would "lie for the right price."

Feldman then goes on to relate how Mike subsequently confronted the man and accused him of lying. Do you think that Feldman had any independent evidence for this supposed confrontation? Or was he wholly reliant on Unreliable Mike's account of the incident ?

It's been quite some time since I read Feldman's book (which I enjoyed, by the way), but I seem to recall that he didn't place too much credence on the Battlecrease provenance. He said that he'd heard that the electricians had found 'something' under the floorboards and had taken whatever it was to Liverpool University. When he himself contacted Liverpool University for more information, he was more or less told to mind his own business. Later, he said that whatever it was the electrician's had found, it wasn't the Diary.

I always had the strong impression that he desperately wanted Anne's story of the Diary's provenance to be true. He wanted, it seems, to prove that Anne was actually descended from Florence Graham, and that the Diary had been in the possession of the Graham family for many years. Which is why he went to great lengths to try and establish a family link between existing Maybricks and Anne Graham. He was, after all, a film and TV producer, and was actively promoting his new proposed film in which James Maybrick would be cast as the genuine Jack The Ripper. He needed proof. Feldman effectively wore himself out with what became an obsession. The film was never made.

One tiny little detail sprung to mind recently: have the pages of The Diary ever been DNA tested?

Graham

[John G]

"Anne claimed to have first seen the diary in the 1960s," but surely only at the behest of Paul Feldman who promulgated the fantasy that the diary came from Anne's family.

Cheers

Chris

Hi Chris,

According to Feldman, one of the Battlecrease electricians intimated that he'd removed the diary from Battlecrease, although he ultimately concluded that said electrician would "lie for the right price."

Feldman then goes on to relate how Mike subsequently confronted the man and accused him of lying. Do you think that Feldman had any independent evidence for this supposed confrontation? Or was he wholly reliant on Unreliable Mike's account of the incident ?

[Abby Normal]

How many versions of where it came from are there??

(that's not a rhetorical question)

[John Wheat]

"Anne claimed to have first seen the diary in the 1960s,"

Chris

If you believe that you'll believe anything.