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

[caz]

Having listened again to the Tom Baker-narrated documentary on the Diary, this statement is made: "Inscribed very faintly on the inner cover of the Victorian watch was 'I am Jack', James Maybrick's signature and the initials of Jack the Ripper's victims, plus two more that the author of the diary had claimed he'd murdered in Manchester". Were there two additional sets of victims' initials after all? If not, how did that nugget of misinformation find its way into the script?

IIRC, it was originally thought there were other possible initials scratched into that surface, but this turned out not to be the case. [A bit like people thinking they see initials on Kelly's wall in the photo? ] As there was nothing in the papers before the diary was first published about any further possible victims in Manchester or anywhere else, and nothing either about how many victims 'Maybrick' was claiming or which ones, it was presumably just a coincidence and nobody was trying to make something out of random scratch marks that would have meant nothing at the time.

Misinformation like this tends to creep in from all sides unfortunately, and all too often takes hold - like the myth of it being a lady's watch, as if that would make any difference anyway.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Yes, you might well be right: at the end of the day, it's all about instinct and impressions. It's also worth pointing out that, in Mike's original affidavit, he not only claims that his wife wrote the Diary, she also purchased the red diary.

However, if his primary motivation was gaining revenge on Anne, why implicate TD as well? What had he done to offend him?

Then there's the matter of patterns of behaviour. Thus, in his affidavit he makes it abundantly clear that he was the creative brain behind the Diary, whereas as Anne was basically working under his direction. However, as I've pointed out, Mike had a long history of making wildly exaggerated claims about his achievements.

I also think that whoever was the real driving force behind the Diary must have been highly motivated: otherwise these hoaxes would surely be much more common. Does that sound like Mike to you? After all, he spent several years as a house-husband whilst his wife worked as a secretary.

You possibly don't share this view, but my overall impression is that the Diary was well-written, at least from a psychological point of view. And if it wasn't, why are we still debating its authenticity over a quarter of a century later?

Returning to Mike's affidavit, it's obviously written in an extremely sloppy style. I mean, just consider this one sentence: "At about the same time as all this was being discussed by my wife and I. I spoke to William Graham about our idea. This was my wifes father and he said to me its a good idea..."

Why the full stop after the first "I"? And, of course, "wifes" should be "wife's" and "its" should be "it's."

I therefore ask myself, could an individual, who appears to be only semi-literate and poorly motivated, have even of conceived of the Diary? Could he be responsible for the content-the real creative and driving force behind the hoax- even assuming Anne actually wrote the Diary whilst he dictated? Personally, I think it unlikeky.

Good points, John.

As far as I am aware, marital problems, drinking to excess - or even having a stroke - do not make someone semi-literate if they had left school with reasonable reading and writing skills. Besides, according to Anne, Mike's drinking had become heavy by 1988, so if alcohol was affecting his ability to write, think and keep a straight story in 1995, why not in 1992 or whenever he is meant to have been working on or helping with the diary in its planning stages?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I see no reason at all why the watch hoaxer shouldn't have thrown in, for example, a "JJ" and an "MS" just for jolly, if they'd known that the diary indicated two extra victims. In the 1990s, it was unlikely that it could have been conclusively proven that no "EJ" or "MS" had been murdered; indeed, we'd struggle to do so now. On the other hand, they might have struck it lucky if the murders of an "Elizabeth Jones" and/or "Mary Smith" were - eventually - found, so it was practically a shot to nothing.

Hi Gareth,

Naturally, a hoaxer working on the watch in 1993 would have been guessing which victims to include, and took a risk with ES, for example, because for all they knew the diary author may have gone down the route of Stride not being one of his. In fact, why bother with engraving any initials in the watch? 'I am Jack' and the Maybrick signature would have been perfectly sufficient.

However, if the diary was created as a companion piece for the watch, or vice versa, there is at least some method in the madness, with no newspaper reports available to inform "Sir Jim" of the names of his first and last victims. He assumes the first 'whore is now with her maker', but he felt no pleasure as he 'squeezed', he felt 'nothing'. It takes quite a time to strangle someone to death, so one could read this as an attempt that didn't quite come off. He doesn't mention his nice shiny knife, so in theory she could have recovered after he ran off and not reported it because she'd been soliciting. You have to turn a couple of diary pages before he realises he will have to allow for 'gallons' of the red stuff drenching his clothes when his London campaign begins, which again implies no knife featured in the Manchester attack. When he does use one, on Polly Nichols, 'the pleasure was far better than I imagined'. With the last victim, again it can be read that he abandoned his knife and she may have survived. 'I could not cut like my last [MJK], visions of her flooded back as I struck...' 'I left her for dead, that I know. It did not amuse me. There was [no] thrill. I have showered my fury on the bitch [Florie]'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Naturally, a hoaxer working on the watch in 1993 would have been guessing which victims to include, and took a risk with ES, for example, because for all they knew the diary author may have gone down the route of Stride not being one of his.

As I've suggested, I reckon any hoaxer sticking to the accepted five victims would have been on fairly safe ground. Besides, I believe it has already been pointed out that the newspaper coverage of the diary's discovery focused on the "five victims" angle, as had all of the most popular books and movies of the 1970s and 1980s.

[Sam Flynn]

In fact, why bother with engraving any initials in the watch? 'I am Jack' and the Maybrick signature would have been perfectly sufficient.

An amateurish hoaxer is quite likely to over-egg the pudding, which is why I'm inclined to think that an "over-egging" hoaxer with inside knowledge of the Diary would indeed have tried to include the extra victims, if not as made-up initials then as anonymous "Xs" or some other marks to record another couple of notches on the Ripper's knife.

[caz]

They could safely have included a pair of made-up initials on the watch, which would only have reinforced the idea that its owner was also the fiendish "James Maybrick" of the diary if, that is, they knew that the diary had put two "bonus" victims up for grabs. The fact that they didn't speaks volumes to me.

So you are posing as Sir Jim the Ripper, writing about two "bonus" victims whose attacks didn't make the papers - because you just invented them. Why on earth would you make up any old initials for these women, unless you were none too bright and hadn't thought this through properly?

Picture the scene again:

"Excuse me, my dear. Before I carve you up and serve you to the children, could you possibly tell me your real name - first name and surname if you please? I desperately need to carve your initials into my gentleman's dress watch afterwards and make everything more believable."

"You're clean off your rocker, you are."

"Yes, I rather think I must be."

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

An amateurish hoaxer is quite likely to over-egg the pudding. Besides, the initials were there on the watch, so the point is somewhat moot.

I meant there really would have been no need for a hoaxer working in 1993, having to make an educated guess at the basic five victims. But I can see you are having difficulty considering any alternative scenarios.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

So you are posing as Sir Jim the Ripper, writing about two "bonus" victims whose attacks didn't make the papers - because you just invented them. Why on earth would you make up any old initials for these women?

Because you'd have nothing to lose, for reasons I've already given (i.e. not every murder was detected, recorded or reported, etc).

unless you were none too bright and hadn't thought this through properly

That is quite possible, too.

[Sam Flynn]

I meant there really would have been no need for a hoaxer working in 1993, having to make an educated guess at the basic five victims. But I can see you are having difficulty considering any alternative scenarios.

That's what I've been saying, i.e. that it would have been fairly obvious for a hoaxer working in 1993 to have plumped for those five. No "educated guess" needed at all, only access to popular books, movies/videos and press reports.

[Busy Beaver]

The Maybrick Diary was written by a person or persons unknown and has been seriously murdered by Casebook Members.

[caz]

Surely he would have added details of his repair to the other repair marks on the surface with the signature and initials?

Well no, he didn't, Joshua. I'm not sure many watch repairers do that these days, so I wouldn't necessarily count this against Dundas. The Murphys only asked him - and presumably only paid him - to repair the movement in Albert's watch, so assuming he did just that, he'd have no need to inspect that inner surface closely for any scratch marks.

The problem is that Dundas claimed he had examined and serviced the watch, and thought he had fitted a spring and polished the case. What's more, he said the only markings at that time were 'repair markings'. So he had better be talking about a different watch entirely, or there's an even bigger problem, because the Maybrick/ripper markings in Albert's watch are under everything else, including anything resembling repair marks.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Because you'd have nothing to lose, for reasons I've already given (i.e. not every murder was detected, recorded or reported, etc).

That is quite possible, too.

I'm clearly wasting my time here. I'll try once more. Other readers might like to put their ear muffs on because this is going to be quite loud.

Only a complete thicko would invent initials for victims who never made it to the papers, for the obvious reason that the ripper WOULD HAVE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING THEIR REAL NAMES.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

And I've already answered you on that very point, Caz.

[caz]

There are murders that we are only even now discovering, John, with all the automation at our disposal. Besides, not every murder is recorded, some are not detected, there are anonymous victims of murder, and victims of murder who used pseudonyms or nicknames. Against that backdrop, even the stalwarts that you mention would struggle to prove conclusively that a made-up "JJ" and "MS" hadn't fallen victim to Maybrick-the-Ripper.

But again, Gareth, how credible would it have seemed that the ripper had made a point of finding out, as he prepared to strike, what each and every prospective victim called herself, so if he was unable to read all about it in next morning's papers for any of the reasons you give above, he was still able to add their initials to his watch?

It doesn't make sense. It would have been a bigger red flag than all your supposed anachronisms combined.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

yes yes I understand that. so it points to two different hoaxers no?

Only if you can show how the watch could possibly have been hoaxed as late as 1993, taking account of all the known circumstances and evidence.

Love,

Caz
X