The biggest fault

[Omlor]

Caroline writes:

"Omlor,

I wasn't telling you what 'we should' conclude. You asked what 'we can conclude' from 'all of this'.

And just a bit earlier Caroline wrote:

I wasn't even asking anyone to 'conclude' anything.

This is fun.

In conclusion,

-- John

[Inspector Abberline]

The biggest fault

I think is the tale about the rings and farthings found at Annie Chapmans feet. How could the police miss that if itīs correct. Why are those not mentioned in the Police files?

[Crystal]

It is in fact ridiculous. The idea that anybody would actually take it seriously only demonstrates that people are a) desperate to see what they want to see b) extremely gullible; or c) stupid. The idea is quite clever, but the product is rubbish, quite frankly. Oh, ok, so the forger just about managed to acquire a book of the right date - but, wait - it was a scrapbook - utterly ridiculous. Nobody, except a not-terribly-bright modern day forger, would have considered that acceptable as a journal for a second. Scrapbooks were for women and children at the time: Maybrick, mental or not, would certainly not have written down his crimes in a scrapbook - its silly. And of course, as has been oft repeated, the first few pages were torn out, which is, sorry, a dead givaway. I have daily contact with all kinds of ledgers, journals etc from this period, and none of them have the first few pages torn out. Many of them do, however, have blank pages at the back, or even in the middle, to mark the end of one entry and the beginning of the next - another reason to doubt the validity of the diary - nobody would have written a diary like that, in a constant, undated stream of consciousness. Utter nonsense.

The clever bits about it are to take a previously unsuspected individual, living elsewhere and travelling to London at roughly the right times, who can be given a motive and who dies shortly after the murder of MJK. This is the part that has kept people on the hook for so long, as it seems to answer a lot of questions and tick a lot of boxes. If you take a step back and look at the artefact that is the 'diary', then the extent to which the whole thing is ludicrous becomes quite apparent. I would doubt very much that the individual responsible for thinking this up was the same one as the muppet who put the thing together.

Guess that makes it a conspiracy....

[Soothsayer]

I do so love the self-righteous criminologists who decry a thing not because in itself it is flawed but because they themselves think it's flawed.

The 'diary' can't be a diary 'cos it doesn't have any dates (that one comes up from time to time). I love that one.

Only simpletons would write in a scrapbook in the Victorian period, therefore it can't have been Person X who did it. Well, if you say so!

It puts me in mind of Mr. [sic] Harold Shipman, murdering GP of these islands. None of us, surely, could ever have thought a GP could act in such a hideous way - so it's alright everyone, it couldn't possibly have been him!

Case solved by 'personal opinion'. Excellent technique.

Caz, you are a beacon of reason ...

[Crystal]

It is a fake. Face it. Yes, I know people want it to be real, and that is quite understandable, because people want answers, and if it was real, well, that would answer the 120 year old question of who JTR was, wouldn't it?

It isn't 'real' as far as being a 'diary' of the 19th century, never mind 'real' as being written by Maybrick. Yes, ok, so the scrapbook itself is of the right date, etc. but it is still very flawed in its construction as a written work, so much so that it really does stretch credibility. That's not being self-righteous, only logical.

Dr. Shipman does not really belong in here, as your point is irrelevant. Society was surprised by Shipman being a serial killer because he was a doctor, that being a position of trust. Doctors are supposed to heal, not kill, so of course we don't expect it! Now, I haven't said anything about Maybrick not being JTR, and neither have I said he couldn't have done it because of his position in life. I say that the diary is a clear work of fiction, cobbled together on the back of the Hitler diaries, and not a 19th century diary, certainly not by Maybrick. Yes, I can see that there is more to the whole thing than meets the eye, but that has more to do with how this consipiracy was invented and executed.

Incidentally, whilst it may have been difficult for Caz to obtain a ledger of the right date, it wouldn't be difficult for me. True, I am in an unusual position of access to documents of that date, but they really aren't rare. Quite the contrary. I have in fact been obliged to dispose of many ledgers of the time simply because they are considered to be of no value historically.

[Nothing to see]

I looked at 'the' Maybrick diary at the Docklands exhibit last year. Yes, it was an old book. I am not an expert on forgery or anything in that line. When the diary book was first published I raced out and bought a copy thinking this is it!

It wasn't. What I read then didn't impress me and nothing since has impressed me either. I guess the most important point to me is the lack of clear, concise, straight in a line provenance. The stories about who had the diary, where it came from etc have changed far too many times for me. JMO.

[Crystal]

There is the whole provenance thing, yes. I'm also with Rendell here, I don't think the hand in the diary is likely to be contemporary with the Whitechapel Murders. It is of course possible that the forgers had an actual mundane diary, possibly Maybrick's own, possibly penned by somebody else, or had read published contemporary diaries in order to give them a flavour of contemporary journals. I wonder if it isn't the case that there does exist somewhere a diary by Maybrick - a perfectly ordinary, mundane affair - just a typcial diary, in fact, which has formed the basis for the work of fiction that is The Maybrick Diary. That would give a solid background on to which the forgers could then plant cut-out-and-paste Ripper Murders. Then again, there are some glaring factual errors seem hard to account for if this is the case. I wouldn't like to be any more self-righteous than I am already, so I'm trying to give it some serious consideration!

[Nothing to see]

You're not being self righteous. You're stating your opinion.

You mention Rendell. Do you mean Ruth Rendell, the fictional author? Has she published work about Jack?

[Crystal]

That would be great! But no, I meant Kenneth Rendell, an expert in the field of document analysis. I would add that contemporary handwriting does tend to share a lot of common elements, and I don't see those in the diary hand. Now, I see contemporary handwritten documents on a daily basis, and whilst some people certainly had difficult or almost illegible hands, the key to reading those still lies in what you know you will see in terms of generalities. The diary hand is just too idiosyncratic to be that of even a slightly educated man writing in the 1880's - I don't care how mad he's meant to have been!

[Nothing to see]

Can you share more of what you know?

[Mike Covell]

I just want to see Ruth Rendall take on Jack the Ripper!

I find it quite ironic that a crime writer, sits in the House of Lords under labour, the biggest criminals in the UK right now! At least we know where she gets her ideas from.

Anyway, I too went out and bought the first diary book, then the next, then the one after and have quite a few now, including first and second editions. I also have the wonderful "Maybrick A-Z" by Chris Jones, which is an excellent book, and several books on Florence Maybrick and her trial.

[Nothing to see]

Me too Mike. At the time, I had no idea of all the background.

In the papers, it was the solution. Like I said, I raced out and bought it. What a load of c***.

Anyway, I have read Ruth Rendell. She is a very good fiction writer.

[Soothsayer]

I wonder if it isn't the case that there does exist somewhere a diary by Maybrick - a perfectly ordinary, mundane affair - just a typcial diary, in fact, which has formed the basis for the work of fiction that is The Maybrick Diary. That would give a solid background on to which the forgers could then plant cut-out-and-paste Ripper Murders. Then again, there are some glaring factual errors seem hard to account for if this is the case. I wouldn't like to be any more self-righteous than I am already, so I'm trying to give it some serious consideration!

Interesting logic to this one. A real Maybrick diary is discovered by the forgers so they use it to base their forgery on. All good stuff so far.

Catch is, wouldn't the forgers have copied the handwriting in the real Maybrick diary for the forgery and therefore achieved their aim of fooling the world?

Just to be absolutely clear about the self-righteous thing (as you are self-righteously attempting to mock it), it was a reference to you and anyone else who draws conclusions solely from their opinion.

The reference to Shipman was purely designed to illustrate that very point, rather some bizarre attempt to start a new and thoroughly unJacklike thread!

[Crystal]

Just to be absolutely clear about the self-righteous thing (as you are self-righteously attempting to mock it),

Hahahahahaha!

Mockery? I MAY have to demonstrate that I dont' need to attempt it..

Catch is, wouldn't the forgers have copied the handwriting in the real Maybrick diary for the forgery and therefore achieved their aim of fooling the world?

Ummm! You got me there! How could I have been so stoopid?

I was just speculating. But, if the forger(s) had seen Maybrick's real diary, assuming it existed, then no, they wouldn't have copied the real handwriting, because it wouldn't have achieved their aim of fooling the world. Effectively and convincingly sustaining another person's handwriting over several pages of text is extremely difficult. Any attempt but the absolute best would have been spotted as a forgery straight away by anybody working in the field of graphology. Does that answer your question? If the forger(s) were as sophisticated as this, then they would have certainly used another hand, close to, or identical with their own. The assumption by the reader would then be intended as this: that the handwriting in the diary differs so markedly from Maybrick's own because it is the writing of a man in the descent to madness, freed from the everyday constraints of having or needing to write properly. Catch is, to paraphrase your own words, that this hand is unlikely to be contemporary with the Whitechapel Murders. I would guess (an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless) that the author of the diary was educated in the 1950's. My own view, in fact, is that the author(s) of the diary were not as sophisticated as this. I think they may have read a contemporary diary, yes, but several have been published, so there would be no need to look any further than, say, the local library. I would actually doubt that they had even ever seen Maybrick's handwriting. It is more probable, I think, that they thought a handwritten document using approximately appropriate language would do the trick.

I expect they thought they were being clever.

it was a reference to you and anyone else who draws conclusions solely from their opinion.

You are referring to yourself then, I take it? I have yet to see you present any evidence or factual information which supports the diary's veracity. Just a thought. In fact to suggest that drawing conclusions soley from one's opinion is self-righteous is nonsensical. Everybody draws their conclusions from their opinion - what, you thought there were actually people in the world capable of being entirely objective? It's how you come to your opinion that counts. Mine comes from known facts and from educated observations, not from desire or fantasy. I think that means my opinion carries some weight. I don't think an opinion which sees the diary as genuine in the face of the facts is very solid. Yes, its fine if people want to believe in it, but accept that its a matter of faith, and not one of logic.


I know true believers in the diary cite the tests that were carried out as evidence that we can't prove it isn't genuine (amongst other similarly woolly things) because the document is contemporary and the ink can't be distinguished from contemporary ink. It isn't just the artefact that counts though, is it? its the content. I'm sure you are familiar with the whole 'Poste House' problem - it can't be the one in Liverpool because it wasn't known by that name in the 1880's. That, at least, seems to be established beyond doubt. I have seen it suggested that this 'Poste House' might be in London. Ok, find one. I bet you won't - I think the actual name is anachronistic. I doubt if you'll find any public houses by that name in the 1880's because I think it's a modern-day invention based on notions of heritage.

As always, I stand to be corrected.

And finally, it didn't even occur to me that you were starting a Shipman thread. You missed the point. Which was that the use of Shipman was irrelevant as far as I could see. What does Shipman have to do with whether Maybrick wrote the diary (he didn't); whether Maybrick was the Ripper (almost certainly not); or whether the diary is a modern fake (it is) ?

As they say in the inns of court, I rest my case.

[caz]

Hi Crystal,

As an expert in handwritten documents from the 1880s, and those written by people educated in the 1950s, could you help me clear up a couple of queries I have, as an amateur enthusiast who didn't start school until 1959?

Would someone educated earlier in the 1950s tend to use capital letters for places or people (words like exchange, post house or doctor, for example) or would they only do so if trying to write as someone was likely to have done in the 1880s (the Exchange, the Post(e) House, a Doctor and so on)?

Ditto for the punctuation, eg use of the apostrophe and constructions such as 'can't' or 'won't', which are not in evidence in the 'diary'?

And can you explain why the two experts in 19th century manuscripts who were asked for their opinion back in 1992 could see no sign of what you are claiming here about the writing style or appearance?

Thanks ever so.

Love,

Caz
X

PS I put the e of Poste House in brackets because the diarist misspells post haste as 'poste haste', therefore there is no way of telling that any Post House would not naturally have been misspelled 'Poste House' regardless of where it was and what its name was above the door.