One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Chris]

It's now become apparent to me that Mary Kelly's whole body had been contorted to form a J-M.

Not only that, but I've just realised that the River Thames between Chelsea and Woolwich is spelling out an enormous J and an enormous M. Spooky or what?

[Pcdunn]

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!)

Very interesting thread, and I still have four years of it to read.
Nevertheless, I had a thought: What if Maybrick wrote it, while under the influence of arsenic-induced euphoria? What if this accounts for the different handwriting, the bad doggerel, the expansive ego, etc... AND what if it it not a diary of TRUE events, but merely an addict's fantasies, encouraged by the popular news of the day? So-- he wrote it, but was not the Ripper, except in his deluded mind.

Pat D.

[MayBea]

If Maybrick wrote it on a lark while he was high, there wouldn't be any fatal flaws - anachronistic terms or phrases or insurmountable timeline problems etc. The same goes for any old hoax theory written by a contemporary author within James' circle.

The absence of fatal flaws suggests, at least, the weakness of the modern hoax theory.

...the River Thames between Chelsea and Woolwich is spelling out an enormous J and an enormous M. Spooky or what?

Actually, you're right, Chris. I never noticed that before.

[Spider]

If Maybrick wrote it on a lark while he was high, there wouldn't be any fatal flaws - anachronistic terms or phrases or insurmountable timeline problems etc. The same goes for any old hoax theory written by a contemporary author within James' circle.

I would have thought being on a high would on the contrary have actually give plenty of scope for errors.
Can you expand on the "insurmountable timeline problems", I'm not aware of any personally but have been off the Casebook for quite a while.

Cheers

[MayBea]

Maybrick's movements are fairly well documented, at least enough that he could easily have been proven to be elsewhere during the canonical murders. So far, that has not been the case.

Being high would cause errors in the writing but would also explain the errors. (Not to mention being old and frenzied out of his mind.) That might explain, say, an error as to placement of certain body parts in a room, for example.

He'd still recall his appointments, which he went to while in a sober/non-drugged state, so to remember if they eliminated him as a suspect.

[Rosella]

Did Maybrick also possess the gift of being able to foresee the future? He refers throughout the Diary to his wife Florence and her lover as 'the whore' and 'the whoremaster'.

This undoubtedly refers to an affair between Florence and Alfred Brierley. However this affair didn't commence until March 1889 and lasted a matter of weeks.

In my opinion the author of the Journal read a lot about Florence Maybrick and made an error in his dates.

[Pcdunn]

If Maybrick wrote it on a lark while he was high, there wouldn't be any fatal flaws - anachronistic terms or phrases or insurmountable timeline problems etc. The same goes for any old hoax theory written by a contemporary author within James' circle.

The absence of fatal flaws suggests, at least, the weakness of the modern hoax theory.

Well, that's a point... I am pretty sure the 'Diary' is a modern hoax, tbh, but thought I'd throw out a "theory" of my own (it's the creative writer bug, I suppose)...

[MayBea]

... He refers throughout the Diary to his wife Florence and her lover as 'the whore' and 'the whoremaster'.

This undoubtedly refers to an affair between Florence and Alfred Brierley. However this affair didn't commence until March 1889 and lasted a matter of weeks.

It was Brierley himself who said he first met Florence in Battlecrease in November of 1888. I don't know how much stock to put in that.

The 'whore' epithet doesn't have to mean she was fully engaged in a sexual affair. Any attention toward another man would be enough for a man like James.

The next day was Grand National day at Aintree and Florence ... bumped into Brierley and, much to her husband's disgust, walked up the course with him. They returned home separately. James was absolutely furious that his wife had shown him up and the couple rowed, with Maybrick striking his wife.

Murderpedia

[Rosella]

It is pretty clear that Brierley is 'the whoremaster' referred to in the Maybrick Journal though.

I've got Kate Colquuhoun's recent book 'Did she Kill Him?' about James's mysterious death. Although it doesn't go into the question of whether Maybrick was JTR at all, it does state that earlier in the year of 1888 Brierley was paying attention to another lady.

The Aintree incident is likely the turning point for Florence and Alfred to become closer friends. She didn't even know his address in the Directory earlier in the year.

However the races at Aintree attended by the Maybricks and their friends and Alfred Brierley were in November. If we except Mary Jane Kelly, who is driving James Maybrick on to murderous fury in August, September etc?

[Batman]

I think the diary was absolutely dubious from the moment it was revealed it had pages torn from the front out, a typical trait of a forgery. Buy old used diary. Rip out pages. Write diary with ink from the time period you want by buying the stuff.

[Rosella]

Exactly! I think what Barrett used as 'the journal' was an old scrapbook, as it bore traces of gum and card as if it had once had photos or postcards etc glued in it. Michael Barrett probably found it on a second-hand stall.

[caz]

Not only that, but I've just realised that the River Thames between Chelsea and Woolwich is spelling out an enormous J and an enormous M. Spooky or what?

Keith and I realised that several years ago, Chris, but we didn't have permission to reveal it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Exactly! I think what Barrett used as 'the journal' was an old scrapbook, as it bore traces of gum and card as if it had once had photos or postcards etc glued in it. Michael Barrett probably found it on a second-hand stall.

Congratulations, Rosella. You have just turned the diary clock back a good twenty years. Barrett had nothing to do with acquiring the Victorian guard book pre-diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Did Maybrick also possess the gift of being able to foresee the future? He refers throughout the Diary to his wife Florence and her lover as 'the whore' and 'the whoremaster'.

This undoubtedly refers to an affair between Florence and Alfred Brierley. However this affair didn't commence until March 1889 and lasted a matter of weeks.

In my opinion the author of the Journal read a lot about Florence Maybrick and made an error in his dates.

If you had read the diary more carefully you would not have made the error you make above. There is no 'undoubtedly' about it. Shortly before Christmas 1888, according to the diary chronology, 'Sir Jim' writes: The bitch, the whore is not satisfied with one whore master, she now has eyes on another.

After Christmas, 'Sir Jim' wonders: if the whore will take the bastard? The bitch is welcome to him... and ...A friend has turned, so be it. Later he writes: ...let the bitch believe I have no knowledge of her whoring affairs [plural]. When she returns the whore will pay.

Make what you will of all this, but there's no sense in ignoring it. If we assume this refers to Brierley (and incidently, the 'Aintree incident' was at the end of March 1889, a few days after Florie and Brierley had been intimate at the hotel in London), then the early 'whore master' references must have been about someone else.

Love,

Caz
X

[Batman]

Actually speaking of 20 years... What has the diary ever added to the historical research of the Whitechapel murders?

Zero. Absolutely nothing.