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

[Graham]

Say it's not a forgery as per se, but it was planted by someone trying to frame the guy? I mean he was himself bumped off so maybe the diary was attempt numero uno to get shut

Hi NeilG,

it's an old theory that the Diary was conceived and executed as a way of getting Florence Maybrick off the hook. That is, if her old man really had been Jack the Ripper, then that in itself was a good enough reason for her to do him in and get away with it. Ha ha.

Unfortunately for such a theory, and as the Court of Appeal eventually accepted, there was really no hard evidence that James Maybrick had been murdered by his wife or anyone else, and so Florence was reprieved, and by being reprieved was to all intents and purposes exonerated. Which should have resulted in the instant release of Florence from prison, but didn't. She stayed there for a number of years, and remains if I am correct in saying so, the only example in recent English legal history of a person who was in essence exonerated of a crime of which he/she was accused and sentenced, and later effectively cleared of, but who wasn't immediately released. Those were the days!

Hang 'em high!

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Jari Louhelainen??????

Gesundheit!

[NeilG]

hi all,

I'm very much a noobie/newbie (whatever it is called) but I have read the diary some years ago now and found it an interesting read at the time. However another theory occurred to me, which unless I'm blind and missed it, hasn't presented itself.

Say it's not a forgery as per se, but it was planted by someone trying to frame the guy? I mean he was himself bumped off so maybe the diary was attempt numero uno to get shut.

I have zilch to back that up, just felt it may be good fodder for the thread.

Cheers!

Neil

[Abby Normal]

Fair point!

But who else have we got? Why would he have been singled out unless the vast majority taking fees for their professional services are on the level?

And his example is a poor one, because you still need evidence before suggesting that another named 'expert' in a different field is either out of their depth or on the fiddle.

Love,

Caz
X

Cmon can it happens everyday, especially in the court system.

[Abby Normal]

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

Maybe he knew them.
But your right only a thicko would do it, and or a poor hoaxer, and or a hoaxer who Knew there were two more included in the diary.

[caz]

Fair point!

But who else have we got? Why would he have been singled out unless the vast majority taking fees for their professional services are on the level?

And his example is a poor one, because you still need evidence before suggesting that another named 'expert' in a different field is either out of their depth or on the fiddle.

Love,

Caz
X

[ohrocky]

The ugly suggestion I have seen elsewhere, that experts will give the result they are being paid to give, is particularly stupid. Who seriously risks a previously excellent reputation in their field for a few lousy hundred quid, in return for giving a verdict that would demonstrate either their incompetence or their crookedness?

Jari Louhelainen??????

[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

[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

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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

[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

[Busy Beaver]

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

[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.

[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.