One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

There certainly was an analysis of his handwriting - first, the writing on his will, and secondly his writing of a telegram when he was en route from the USA to England (on the SS Baltic, if I recall correctly). As far as I'm aware, it's generally reckoned that these samples of Maybrick's known handwriting do not correspond to that of the Diary. Or to the known handwriting of either Barratt, or to any other known person.

Graham

I fear you're right, Graham, sadly. How much easier for the pro-journalist if they did match.

More importantly, of course, I had imagined you might have commented on my 'Glum in the Brum' reference???

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I fear you're right, Graham, sadly. How much easier for the pro-journalist if they did match.

More importantly, of course, I had imagined you might have commented on my 'Glum in the Brum' reference???

Ike

That might have been on a different thread, mind!

Ike

[Harry D]

In itself, it's not enough to ignore everything else, though. The reference to 'Poste House', the use of 'tin match box empty', Barrett discovering the obscure poem, the placing of Kelly's breasts are all things you would not have expected to happen if the diary were genuine, but they are not in themselves catastrophic evidence of a forgery.

Sure, it's not conclusive of a forgery but for the killer to get such a basic fact wrong about his gruesome masterpiece is definitely a black mark against its authenticity. More likely that the diarist was a hoaxer working from an erroneous newspaper report.

[Graham]

Correction re: Post 1512

I just noticed I said that Barrett obtained the 'small, red diary' at auction; he didn't. He said he bought it mail-order. He claimed to have bought the Diary from Outhwaite & Litherland's auction house, but his description of the bidding process is very much at odds with O & L's actual procedure. Barrett claimed to possess a 'ticket' which he said would prove he got the Diary from O & L, but when challenged to produce it he refused.

Graham

[Hannibal Hayes]

Correction re: Post 1512

I just noticed I said that Barrett obtained the 'small, red diary' at auction; he didn't. He said he bought it mail-order. He claimed to have bought the Diary from Outhwaite & Litherland's auction house, but his description of the bidding process is very much at odds with O & L's actual procedure. Barrett claimed to possess a 'ticket' which he said would prove he got the Diary from O & L, but when challenged to produce it he refused.

Graham

I was under the impression that Barrett's friend, Tony Devereux, gave him the diary.

However, there are also other suggestions doing the rounds:

Ann Barrett gave it to Tony Devereux, so that he could give it to Mike. She claimed that it had been in her family for years.

It was stolen from Battlecrease House by builders when they renovated it.

The diary was discovered during renovations at Mike Barrett's home in 1992.

I have no idea which of the above is true, if any of them, but unfortunately, Barrett was an alcoholic who changed his story many times.

[Graham]

I was under the impression that Barrett's friend, Tony Devereux, gave him the diary.

However, there are also other suggestions doing the rounds:

Ann Barrett gave it to Tony Devereux, so that he could give it to Mike. She claimed that it had been in her family for years.

It was stolen from Battlecrease House by builders when they renovated it.

The diary was discovered during renovations at Mike Barrett's home in 1992.

I have no idea which of the above is true, if any of them, but unfortunately, Barrett was an alcoholic who changed his story many times.

One thing's for sure - what became The Diary was never bought from Outhwaite & Litherland Ltd, at least not by Mike Barrett. And neither he nor his wife wrote the damn thing.

Paul Feldman said he had heard that electricians working at Battlecrease had 'found' something which they took to the University of Liverpool for examination, but nothing more was heard of whatever 'it' was. Feldman didn't follow it up with his usual vigour, but did find out that one of the electricians drank at The Saddle, the pub where Tony Devereux and Mike Barrett drank. However, Barrett later vehemently denied that The Diary came from Battlecrease, by whatever means. Well, he would, wouldn't he, seeing that he was claiming that he had produced it?

For what it's worth (not a lot...) I feel that the story that The Diary came from Battlecrease seems the most plausible....and unproveable.

Graham

[Hannibal Hayes]

He said/she said, which is one or the main issues we have all these years later.

One problem I find is that I've read so many books & seen a shed load of documentaries on JtR, I can't remember what is fact or fiction anymore. The origins of the diary are a case in point - no-one will ever know (or it's very unlikely) its true origin.

All books & articles are written in a manipulative manner which convinces the reader that the writer knows the real truth. Feldman was convincing in his writing but that doesn't meant it was true, as with other authors.

Unfortunately, we are all sometimes gullible & believe what we read, either in newspaper format or on t'internet. If its in print, it must be true, right? Er, no.

And yet no-one appears to have emphatically answered the original question posted on this thread ........ there goes that tumbleweed .....

[GUT]

Sorry wrong spot somehow

[Iconoclast]

One problem I find is that I've read so many books & seen a shed load of documentaries on JtR, I can't remember what is fact or fiction anymore. The origins of the diary are a case in point - no-one will ever know (or it's very unlikely) its true origin.

And yet no-one appears to have emphatically answered the original question posted on this thread ........ there goes that tumbleweed .....

These are all good points, and well-balanced, from recent posters; but there is a little more hope than perhaps some of us believe. This is 'The Greatest Thread of All' for a reason - it addresses the core question regarding the Maybrick journal which is that in little short of a quarter of a century it has remained as a possible solution to the old conundrum of who Jack R was.

Twenty-four years and still we can pose the question. Okay, it hasn't been proven to be the true case, but critically it hasn't been disproven. It is the latter which should make us cautious when we casually discard the possibility of the former.

The number of aspects of the case which conveniently keep Maybrick in his place as prime suspect significantly outweigh those which potentially exclude him. Key among these are:

1) The reference to Florence Maybrick's initials at Kelly's murder site - initials which are clearly on the record in books by people who vehemently deny the journal (see my recent posts on this site);

2) The 'Diego Laurenz' letter to the Liverpool Echo;

3) The Goulston Street graffito containing the names of James, Thomas, William, a cryptic reference to Edwin, the initials of Florence and Michael, and written in the same hand which wrote the Maybrick journal (see my 'History vs Maybrick').

4) Florence's letter to Brierley which stated (from memory) 'The tale he told me was pure fabrication and only designed to frighten the truth out of me' at the very time in the journal when the author of it is claiming to be Maybrick and claiming that he has told his beloved Bunny that he was JR.

If we could locate the red cigarette case found at Eddowe's murder site and test it for strychnine or arsenic, I believe that the test would come back positive (of course, 127 years may have reduced the possibility of doing this). Were this ever to occur, I would suggest that it is simply impossible to realistically deny Maybrick his place in criminal history.

The momentum has gone out of the Maybrick case. The great protagonists are lost to us. But Anne Graham knows, of course. She is the only person in the world who knows whether the journal was in existence in the 1960s, and - if it was - it is almost certainly the real deal (as it contains references to details not otherwise known until the late 1980s).

I for one have not given up the hope that we can finally prove the journal to be categorically Maybrick's. I think the groundswell of evidence is very strong. I also believe that we could test the red cigarette case one day (it would help considerably if we knew where it is). Finally, I believe that one day it will be shown that the journal came out of Battlecrease, and - if it did - it is the what it claims to be, no doubt about that.

For now, of course, the debate - which once raged on - merely meanders on ...

[John G]

I think a better title for a thread would be, "One incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact that proves the Diary is genuine."

Unfortunately, there is very little factual information in the Diary which can be checked against the historical records, which is exactly what you would expect from a forger. In fact, as has been noted on the thread, when the author does attempt to cite historical facts he/she gets it completely wrong.

And then, of course, there's the fact that the Diary wasn't even written in Maybrick's handwriting.

In my opinion, an old forgery which for some reason wasn't initially used.

And even if it was written by James Maybrick, it doesn't incontrovertibly prove he was the killer, as it might simply have been a work of fantasy.

[c.d.]

"The Goulston Street graffito containing the names of James, Thomas, William, a cryptic reference to Edwin, the initials of Florence and Michael, and written in the same hand which wrote the Maybrick journal (see my 'History vs Maybrick')."

Hello Iconoclast,

Can you explain what you mean here? Are you using a Masonic reference? How do you know the handwriting was in the same hand as the the diary?

c.d.

[John Wheat]

Dairy

I think a better title for a thread would be, "One incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact that proves the Diary is genuine."

Unfortunately, there is very little factual information in the Diary which can be checked against the historical records, which is exactly what you would expect from a forger. In fact, as has been noted on the thread, when the author does attempt to cite historical facts he/she gets it completely wrong.

And then, of course, there's the fact that the Diary wasn't even written in Maybrick's handwriting.

In my opinion, an old forgery which for some reason wasn't initially used.

And even if it was written by James Maybrick, it doesn't incontrovertibly prove he was the killer, as it might simply have been a work of fantasy.

Hi John

I agree a better title for the thread would be "One incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact that proves the Diary is genuine." I also agree the Diary is a forgery. I'm not so sure it was an old forgery but a forgery nonetheless. Good point about even if it was written by Maybrick. At the end of the day the diary is a work of fiction and it should be up to those that say it's genuine to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Cheers John

[Graham]

4) Florence's letter to Brierley which stated (from memory) 'The tale he told me was pure fabrication and only designed to frighten the truth out of me' at the very time in the journal when the author of it is claiming to be Maybrick and claiming that he has told his beloved Bunny that he was JR.

This has (usually) been interpreted that Maybrick told dear Florence that he was actually Jack the Ripper and that if she didn't own up to having it off with Brierley the Ripper's deeds would soon be transferred from London to Liverpool. Or something like that. I would suspect that 'the tale' told by James to Bunny had more to do with something that he had found out about her. As in that she was, and had been for years, a right little strumpet and that it would be better for her to own up to her naughtiness with Alfred Brierley, otherwise he'd make thing rather rotten for her.

Graham

[David Orsam]

This has (usually) been interpreted that Maybrick told dear Florence that he was actually Jack the Ripper and that if she didn't own up to having it off with Brierley the Ripper's deeds would soon be transferred from London to Liverpool. Or something like that. I would suspect that 'the tale' told by James to Bunny had more to do with something that he had found out about her. As in that she was, and had been for years, a right little strumpet and that it would be better for her to own up to her naughtiness with Alfred Brierley, otherwise he'd make thing rather rotten for her.

Yes, this interpretation is plain from the context in which it was written:

"M. has been delirious since Sunday, and I know that now he is perfectly ignorant of everything, even of the name of the street, and also that he has not been making any inquiries whatsoever. The tale he told me was a pure fabrication, and only intended to frighten the truth out of me. In fact he believes my statement, although he will not admit it."

[David Orsam]

I just noticed I said that Barrett obtained the 'small, red diary' at auction; he didn't. He said he bought it mail-order. He claimed to have bought the Diary from Outhwaite & Litherland's auction house, but his description of the bidding process is very much at odds with O & L's actual procedure.

While I'm here, Graham, can you remind me what the evidence is about Outwaite & Litherland's actual procedure?