One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Bridewell]

Effects of Arsenic Abuse

This is from an article by a Samuel Conway on the madsci.org website: (I have deleted the parts which don't seem relevant to Maybrick):

'Apparently arsenic was believed to increase a gentleman's sexual potency. This could lead to an unfortunate psychological addiction -- a desperate
individual with strong feelings of inadequacy might be compelled to partake of the drug out of an obsessive need to improve his performance. Among the symptoms of arsenic poisoning I have noted in several references "euphoria" and "delirium." A craving for these sensations might indeed cause a person to become addicted to the drug, although it is difficult to understand why. Other symptoms include severe abdominal pain, nausea and
vomiting, diarrhea, and a host of other very nasty things. Once again, one might be shocked to imagine that someone would knowingly ingest a deadly
poison simply to get a cheap high, but today, we have some people who engage in "huffing," or deliberately inhaling the solvent vapors from aerosol paint cans. Huffing can also produce some of the symptoms seen with arsenic poisoning, yet people still do it.

Wouldn't people die before becoming addicted? Not necessarily. If they manage to stick to small doses at first, such that they can experience the euphoric effects without the unpleasant side-effect of death, they will happily try it again and again and again. We see the same thing with huffing, as people do it over and over, slowly taking in more and more of the toxin in the pursuit of more potent "highs," until they inhale a lethal dose.'

Is there evidence of euphoria and /or delirium in the diary? It's a long time since I read the original book, so perhaps those better versed in it than I can throw some light?

[Steven Russell]

Cheers for that, Bridewell. Very interesting.

I suppose my point earlier was that addicts of all kinds generally become aware of their slavery to the substance and consequently suffer from low self-esteem. Bragging about their own achievements or knowledge, even privately, can be an attempt to bolster the self-image. Plus they can do, say, and write things that a sober person would not.

Not that I believe JM was the author.

As regards evidence of this in the 'diary', like you, I've not read the relevand books for a while so will leave it to others to comment.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Soothsayer]

Is there evidence of euphoria and /or delirium in the diary? It's a long time since I read the original book, so perhaps those better versed in it than I can throw some light?

Hey Bridey,

You're good at this - where have you been all these years?

There are rivers of euphoria and lakes of delirium in the Maybrick journal. It has, indeed, long since been noted that the author either genuinely felt or very cleverly mimicked the excesses which arsenic would typically inflict upon an addict - this very effectively evidenced in the writing which deteriorates before it finally recovers in time for the denouement. No small feat for a forger then, as indeed now!

None of this proves anything, of course, which is the ultimate aim of this, The Greatest Thread of All.

Can you dig around and find us something damning, either way - nailing the fraud or proving the journal genuine?

I for one would be incredibly grateful if you could ...

[Bridewell]

A Tall Order

Can you dig around and find us something damning, either way - nailing the fraud or proving the journal genuine?

I for one would be incredibly grateful if you could ...

That's something of a tall order, Soothsayer, methinks! Greater minds than mine have tried and failed and it's difficult to see what would constitute the level of proof required. Proveable anachronisms or undisputed scientific evidence would presumably be necessary - but everything unearthed so far seems to be disputed by one side or the other.

A Maybrick DNA match on a hair in Mary Kelly's coffin would do it for me, but that's an unlikely scenario!

Must away!

[Stephen Thomas]

Extraordinary spot, fair maiden of the literary arts.

Mr.Cates might be fair but he is no maiden.

[Soothsayer]

Mr.Cates might be fair but he is no maiden.

Dear Mr. or Ms. Thomas,

Pardon my equivocation in my salutation, but under the circumstances, it seems suddenly prudent. I would like to thank you for pointing out my error but as my experience of the name Lynn has rarely (actually, never) been with one other than of the fairer sex, I am now in doubt of all names.

Can I make a plea that going forward we all identify ourselves clearly by our gender when we give ourselves usernames? I plan to set this in motion by changing my own username to Sir Soothy Soothsayer Friend of Truth.

Fair play?

[Bridewell]

Just to Clarify

Dear Mr. or Ms. Thomas,

Pardon my equivocation in my salutation, but under the circumstances, it seems suddenly prudent. I would like to thank you for pointing out my error but as my experience of the name Lynn has rarely (actually, never) been with one other than of the fairer sex, I am now in doubt of all names.

Can I make a plea that going forward we all identify ourselves clearly by our gender when we give ourselves usernames? I plan to set this in motion by changing my own username to Sir Soothy Soothsayer Friend of Truth.

Fair play?

Just for the record then, Sir Soothsayer, the Bride in Bridewell does not denote femininity, so probably Bridegroomwell would have been a better choice. (At least you weren't deceived by the May in Maybrick!)

Yours aye, Bridewell (Mr)

[lynn cates]

all's fair

Hello Stephen. Thank you.

I suppose one could mean:

1. Fair--to be light skinned.

2. Fair--to conform to the canons of justice.

In the first case, no. I am, as the expression goes, nut brown. In the second, well, I'd like to think so.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

etymology

Hello Sooth. Actually, "Lynn"--if I recall properly, is from an old Scots word meaning waterfall. It is now in much favour with the Welsh. Today, sadly, it has been usurped by the XX chromosomal people--but from the beginning, it was not so.

Now, I return you to James and Florie and Gladys and Bobo.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

The Origin Of Lynn:

Apparently (I'm not clever, just looked it up) it means "Pretty" or "Beautiful" if of Spanish origin. The Gaelic derivation is "ruddy-complected" which sounds suspiciously similar to Blotchy Face. Would you like any offences taken into consideration, Mr Cates or is it just the canonical five?

[Magpie]

'Apparently arsenic was believed to increase a gentleman's sexual potency. This could lead to an unfortunate psychological addiction -- a desperate
individual with strong feelings of inadequacy might be compelled to partake of the drug out of an obsessive need to improve his performance.

Hi Bridewell.

Well, Maybrick was a known hypochondriac with a habit of self medicating. Patent "medicines" of the day contained all manner of crap that would horrify a doctor today. It's possible that he was taking minute doses of arsenic without even being aware of it (at least in the beginning)

However it's not necessary to postulate a psychological addiction--arsenic is physically addictive, and the withdrawal symptoms are pretty horrendous.

[lynn cates]

no account

Hello Bridewell. Five? Umm, can't count that high.

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

To Stewart

Thanks for that support and kind words of my previous post on this thread.

I'm sure you know this, but there is a terrific, very funny book about the faked Fuhrer scribbles by Robert Harris, which also became a brilliant mini-series about the whole knucklehead fiasco, with Jonathan Pryce, Tom Baker, Alan Bennett, and Alexie Sayle, among others.

Both are called: 'Selling Hitler'.

[Steven Russell]

I'm sure Mr. Cates is aware of this but a Welshman called Lynn Davies held the British long jump record for many years. Also there was a US rockabilly band in the 1950s called Lynn Pratt and his Rhythm Cats which is almost as good as Pat Cupp and his Flying Saucers.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Bridewell]

Having Reconsidered

Nothing seems to polarise opinion like the Maybrick Diary, but it's probably fair to say that there are only three possibilities in respect of this item. I'll call them the three masts, because most will nail their colours to one:

(1) The Diary was written by James Maybrick. (Therefore genuine)
(2) The Diary was not written by James Maybrick, but by someone else during his lifetime. (Therefore of the right era, but a forgery)
(3) The Diary was written sometime after the death of James Maybrick. (Therefore possibly not of the right era and also a forgery)

I think everyone will agree with one of those statements. The Romans, when confronted with a crime used to ask the question 'Qui bono?' (Who benefits?).

(3) "Forgery after death of Maybrick". This would have taken place at any time in the century or so after death, but Qui Bono?

The usual "benefit" from a forgery of this kind would be financial. Neither Barrett nor Devereux seems to have gained from the revelation of the artefact

Having done some digging over the past few days I now understand that the Barretts did make money out of the diary, at least initially.

It also occurs to me that the choice of a scrapbook was a strange one. Maybrick's intention - if he were the author - would surely be to show his own cleverness in outwitting the authorities, but also to preserve his own outward appearance as a prosperous businessman. So why choose a scrapbook?

James Maybrick would have had two clear advantages over a forger:

He would have had no difficulty in acquiring a nice 1888 or 1889 diary, or journal, in which to document his activities.
He would also be the one individual in history who would have no difficulty in producing a document in James Maybrick's handwriting.
The writer did neither of these two things, which Maybrick could so easily have done. Why would he claim authorship of a document and then make it look as if he didn't actually write it? There is only one logical conclusion in my view.

The logical conclusion, when we discern that a diary was not used, and the entries apparently not made in Maybrick's own handwriting, is that an 1888 diary was something which the writer could not easily get hold of, and Maybrick's handwriting was something which the writer could not easily reproduce - therefore not Maybrick.

In my view, the only sensible course of action is to treat the Maybrick Diary as what it appears to be, a forgery, until the contrary is proven (i.e. expect those who claim the diary to be genuine to prove their case, and to give the artefact no further attention until they have done so).

Qui Bono? Whoever forged it. (Sorry, Soothsayer!)