One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Hi Spyglass,

Personally, I openly admire them for it. It has been a simply astonishing achievement to bring to market this hopelessly inappropriate article with its wholly inadequate history and still have the debate raging after these twenty bitter years.

Hi Glad,

Of course, it would have been no great achievement at all for anyone faking it prior to 1970, because science can only work with what it's given and the police can't expect to track down a modern forger, or nest of forgers, if they only exist in other people's minds.

After twenty years (I don't do 'bitter' personally) I should have thought it high time for the modern hoax conspiracy theorists to consider that the reason they are nowhere nearer proving their case may be devastatingly simple: there was never a modern hoax conspiracy to crack.

Only a very naughty boy called Mike.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I find it a neat coincidence that the last man publicly hanged in England, in 1868 I believe, was called Michael Barrett.

They'll probably still be trying to hang the diary on our Michael Barrett in 2068 - because nobody would dream of making a false confession, would they?

Ooh and look, there's even a Fenian connection for all you lovely conspiracy theorists out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Barrett_(Fenian)

Love,

Caz
X

[Gladiator]

I've just reviewed a few reviews of the Maybrick video which Mr Feldman et alia produced in the early 1990s, and noted with my usual frustration the repetition of the argument which we here will be well-familiar with - "The diary of Jack the Ripper would be full of insights into the crimes and it is not", "There is nothing new in the diary", etc..

I would like to understand better what sorts of facts that are presumably not yet known would convince diary-detractors of the authenticity of the diary. For example, had the diary emerged into the light of day in, say, 1980, then the reference to Kelly's missing heart would probaby have gone unnoted (it was obiquely referenced as 'no heart no heart' which probably would have been lost on us at the time). At the point at which Bond's autopsy notes were published - c1987? - we would then have been able to say that the diary had apparently pre-dated at least one new fact about the case.

So, what exists in the diary which - if referenced for the first time today - would convince us that the diary is the real deal?

Some casual thoughts:

1) A knife is dredged from the Mersey which somehow can be linked to Maybrick (hopelessly unlikely, but illustrative of my point).
2) The red cigarette case is shown to contain traces of arsenic.
3) James is shown to be in London on each occasion of the murders.
4) A document turns up showing Maybrick's name against a rented room in Middlesex Street (of course, highly unlikely).

I'm going to give this a little more thought and expand the list.

Gladiator

[caz]

5) A Mrs Hammersmith is found, or at least someone with a similar surname whose nickname was Hammersmith.
6) An obscure reference turns up to Florie owning a 'mole bonnet' towards the end of 1888 (although I wonder if this could have been a euphemism: "Christmas save the whores mole bonnett" [sic] - ie Christmas would get in the way of Sir Jim mutilating another whore's - ahem - "mole bonnet").

Mind you, Glad, I always say that if anything like this 'turns up' then it was there all along for a hoaxer to have uncovered independently.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The Times, 9th September 1993—



I'd like to know the identities of the "up to 25 experts" who examined the diary and found "no substantial reasons for rejecting it."

Regards,

Simon

[pinkmoon]

Apparently they found the 25 experts in a pub in Liverpool but they are not too sure of their credentials they could possibly be fake

[caz]

Hi All,

I'd like to know the identities of the "up to 25 experts" who examined the diary and found "no substantial reasons for rejecting it."

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

You could perhaps work out the identities and actual numbers by reading Ripper Diary, The Inside Story by Linder, Morris & Skinner. But it's not really such a bold claim when you study it more closely.

"Up to" 25 means anything from nought to a maximum of 25, as the advertisers who make claims about anything from dandruff shampoo to acne cream know and exploit only too well. You can't touch 'em for it.

"Buy our Hair & Scalp and be up to 100% flake free." (You could still have shoulders like you've been out in a snowstorm.)

"Use Pimple Gone twice a day and you could see your zits reduced by up to 75%". (Your spots probably won't be any worse for it, but they needn't be any better either.)

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Nobody likes a smart-arse.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

Just passing on a bit of advice, Simon, so you won't get taken in by any more of those meaningless "up to" claims.

I wasn't expecting any thanks.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

I don't like playing this game, because it's really up to the diary supporters to prove that it is authentic, not the other way around, but how about this for a fact:

Arsenic addiction may have been a nicely Victorian touch, as opposed to cocaine addiction, or something, but as far as something driving this particular killer, it's a poor choice. The Ripper operated often in very poor light, and must have had quick fingers and a good sense of touch.

Some signature symptoms of low-level, chronic arsenic poisoning are loss of night vision, poor central vision, and loss of sensation in the extremities. A Ripper who can't see at night, nor work well by touch, taxes the imagination. Also, rather than make people manic, everything I have read says that it makes people drowsy and lethargic.

It's almost as though someone said "Hey, what was a Victorian addiction?" came up with arsenic, and didn't read any further.

[Graham]

A Mr John Fleming of Halifax, Nova Scotia, was captain of a steam freighter called Wanda and this ship was used more than once by Maybrick to transport cotton. Capt Fleming stated that he knew Maybrick through business, and claimed they were very good friends. He said he once saw Maybrick sprinkle a powder on his food (whether this was on board ship or elsewhere I can't say) and when he questioned Maybrick about it, the reply was that it was Arsenic. Maybrick added that he took it once in a while as it 'strengthened' him.

This statement was included in a book The Necessity of Criminal Appeal by J H Levy, published 1899 as a direct result of the Maybrick Case and Florence's perceived unfair detention in prison following her reprieve. I haven't read this particular book, but plainly the above statement was included as evidence with which Florence could lodge an appeal.

There are other references outside the Diary of Maybrick's drug habits.

Please read a little about the Diary, Rivkah. It's quite interesting, actually.

I would also add that nowadays not many 'Diarists' or Ripperologists continue to claim that James Maybrick was Jack The Ripper. I certainly don't. However, some of us continue to maintain an interest in the Diary, its origins and its content.

Graham

[Futzbucket]

I don't like playing this game, because it's really up to the diary supporters to prove that it is authentic, not the other way around, but how about this for a fact:

Arsenic addiction may have been a nicely Victorian touch, as opposed to cocaine addiction, or something, but as far as something driving this particular killer, it's a poor choice. The Ripper operated often in very poor light, and must have had quick fingers and a good sense of touch.

Some signature symptoms of low-level, chronic arsenic poisoning are loss of night vision, poor central vision, and loss of sensation in the extremities. A Ripper who can't see at night, nor work well by touch, taxes the imagination. Also, rather than make people manic, everything I have read says that it makes people drowsy and lethargic.

It's almost as though someone said "Hey, what was a Victorian addiction?" came up with arsenic, and didn't read any further.

This is a fantastic point! He'd be blind as a bat in those streets.

I don't mean to disagree, but do you think it's possible that he learned how to function while blind? I mean, his night blindness would have been gradual, so he might have used that to get used to functioning while blind. He meets the girl by a light, and she walks with him arm-in-arm to a dark area. They both now are completely blind, but he's got the advantage as he's used to this.

[Graham]

I've got more chance of flying to the moon than James Maybrick has of being Jack The Ripper. Take it from me.

Graham

[caz]

I don't like playing this game, because it's really up to the diary supporters to prove that it is authentic, not the other way around, but how about this for a fact:

Arsenic addiction may have been a nicely Victorian touch, as opposed to cocaine addiction, or something, but as far as something driving this particular killer, it's a poor choice. The Ripper operated often in very poor light, and must have had quick fingers and a good sense of touch.

Some signature symptoms of low-level, chronic arsenic poisoning are loss of night vision, poor central vision, and loss of sensation in the extremities. A Ripper who can't see at night, nor work well by touch, taxes the imagination. Also, rather than make people manic, everything I have read says that it makes people drowsy and lethargic.

It's almost as though someone said "Hey, what was a Victorian addiction?" came up with arsenic, and didn't read any further.

All of these points have been made before.

The real James Maybrick took veritable cocktails of different drugs, which included arsenic-based 'pick-me-ups'. Our hoaxer refers to Sir Jim being 'in the habit of taking strong medicine' and not being able to live without it; also the 'new source' (of arsenic, although only referred to as his 'medicine') which the real James is known to have found in early 1889. There are references to the headaches the real James told his new doctor, Dr. Drysdale, in November 1888 that he had been suffering from ceaselessly over the previous three months (ie since the August), and also the numbness in his left leg and hand, which the real James reported in addition to various skin eruptions. The hoaxer refers to Sir Jim's extreme tiredness, numbness, poor circulation, cold hands and various other aches and pains; and finally, trying to strike a match while in Mitre Square with Eddowes, but finding the matchbox empty and cursing his luck.

So it does appear that the hoaxer made quite a bit of effort to allow for a killer with an arsenic habit, and to find out what the real Maybrick's symptoms actually were during the crucial period. Of course, the whole thing would have come unglued if the hoaxer had also found that the real Maybrick had visited his Liverpool doctors or chemists on any of the murder evenings. He was visiting Dr. Hopper, for instance, on a weekly basis in the summer and autumn of 1888, and the same year he was popping into the chemist at least twice a day at one point (pity we don't know which point) and sometimes five times a day for his seven drops of 'liquor arsenicalis', which he claimed he was taking for its aphrodisiacal qualities. When going out of town he often had between eight and sixteen doses made up in advance, which suggests he was 'putting it about' a fair bit when away from his long-suffering missus, who was by then not sleeping with him anyway, having found out about his mistress.

Love,

Caz
X

[Futzbucket]

Caz, good read.

Does anyone know how much doctors knew of the effects of arsenic in 1888? I mean, when Maybrick complained to his doctor about his symptoms, how much of a chance would the doctor have told him to stop taking arsenic?