One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Excerpts from The Fabulous National, pg.81 Liverpool Soundings, by Richard Whittington-Egan:

The year 1841 is noteworthy in that the race was won for the first time by a mare, the valiant "Charity." Since then, only a dozen other "remarkable ladies"
have finished first in this most arduous of races...

"Frigate" (1889)

It is interesting to recall in passing that it was in the year of "Frigate's" win that Mrs. Maybrick and her husband had a quarrel upon the Aintree course which was among the first causes of the murder for which she later stood trial and which became Liverpool's criminal cause celebre of 1889.


There is much mention in this chapter about the various record-times for many of the winning horses.

This chapter is interesting because in the OP, much is made of these "rare details" mentioned in the diary, of which, the national winner for 1889 was included.

Odd that those details can be found in a book authored by a well-respected Liverpool writer who also wrote about Maybrick's murder, and also more notably, Jack the Ripper.

I love the poster who uses that "Odd that ..." gambit in a line designed to deride an argument. Of course, it's not really 'odd' because it hasn't provided any insight or novelty. Odd that ...

[Iconoclast]

Excerpts from The Fabulous National, pg.81 Liverpool Soundings, by Richard Whittington-Egan:

The year 1841 is noteworthy in that the race was won for the first time by a mare, the valiant "Charity." Since then, only a dozen other "remarkable ladies"
have finished first in this most arduous of races...

"Frigate" (1889)

It is interesting to recall in passing that it was in the year of "Frigate's" win that Mrs. Maybrick and her husband had a quarrel upon the Aintree course which was among the first causes of the murder for which she later stood trial and which became Liverpool's criminal cause celebre of 1889.


There is much mention in this chapter about the various record-times for many of the winning horses.

This chapter is interesting because in the OP, much is made of these "rare details" mentioned in the diary, of which, the national winner for 1889 was included.

Odd that those details can be found in a book authored by a well-respected Liverpool writer who also wrote about Maybrick's murder, and also more notably, Jack the Ripper.

Oh - I've just spotted what you did there! You turned a quote box rather clumsily into a bold paragraph to draw my attention to the fact that you believe you had already answered my question!

Genius!

Except this bit: I was rather expecting some text which illustrated that Frigate's win in 1889 was the fastest for some period of time? I hadn't been aware that W-E had published that fact so I was full of anticipation. I hadn't expected to just get an irrelevant quotation boldened as my answer.

Must be my age.

[Mike J. G.]

We know all this, Mike. The OP was nine long years ago so all that Frigate was a fast 'un malarky was long-since noted.

The OP is less ill-observed as the book (Harrison I) upon which the comment rested. The fact that some of the Frigate-related chat was out there in a few books is no longer one to shake the tree here, I'm afraid.

But tell me, just so that I'm reassured, what exactly W-E said about the record-times. He gets mentioned 'round these parts a few times, but he's been playing a fairly minor role in all this drama. I haven't even got a copy of "Murder, Mystery, and Moving Next Door to Them" so I can't check this for myself, I'm afraid.

Plus, I'm rather forgetful these days ...

Without wanting to read the entire chapter, IIRC, he specifically talks about the fastest times of every race since its inauguration, and the various riders of said horses. Frigate is mentioned in relation to his discussion of the various female winners of the National. I think he mentions the winning time as compared to the other mares versus the colts.

I just find it interesting because I've never seen anyone specifically mention these books by W-E in relation to the details contained within the diary, and I have looked. I don't doubt that it may have been discussed somewhere, but I've not seen it.

It's surely not a coincidence that these were a popular series of books about this city, containing chapters re: Maybrick, Florence and her lover, the National, and so on.

[Mike J. G.]

Oh - I've just spotted what you did there! You turned a quote box rather clumsily into a bold paragraph to draw my attention to the fact that you believe you had already answered my question!

Genius!

Except this bit: I was rather expecting some text which illustrated that Frigate's win in 1889 was the fastest for some period of time? I hadn't been aware that W-E had published that fact so I was full of anticipation. I hadn't expected to just get an irrelevant quotation boldened as my answer.

Must be my age.

Tbh, I made it bold to just make the notable parts stand out, pretty much what the bold feature is designed for. I did that while you were still asking your question, so there's no connection there.

[Mike J. G.]

Erm ... I think stoat is an animal?

I may have meant stout ...

Odd, that!

[Iconoclast]

I just find it interesting because I've never seen anyone specifically mention these books by W-E in relation to the details contained within the diary, and I have looked. I don't doubt that it may have been discussed somewhere, but I've not seen it.

It's surely not a coincidence that these were a popular series of books about this city, containing chapters re: Maybrick, Florence and her lover, the National, and so on.

Mike, seriously - "Murder, Mystery, and Mayhem" plays a key role in the journal story. Mike Barrett had a copy of it which he had loaned to Tony Devereaux and which the police were very keen to get their hands on when investigating a potential crime. It has been said to be the basis for the journal, or at very least an inspiration for it.

It is well-known in these circles, without ever having been well-read (perhaps).

[Mike J. G.]

Mike, seriously - "Murder, Mystery, and Mayhem" plays a key role in the journal story. Mike Barrett had a copy of it which he had loaned to Tony Devereaux and which the police were very keen to get their hands on when investigating a potential crime. It has been said to be the basis for the journal, or at very least an inspiration for it.

It is well-known in these circles, without ever having been well-read (perhaps).

Yeah, that was among the books I was discussing within W-E's republished works in the 80's. Most of the stories contained in that series had already been published in his other works in the 60's, etc.

It may interest you to know that my family is acquainted with the Devereaux's. I know a lot of the younger Devereaux's, including Michael and Anthony, as we attended St. Austin's together and played football as children.

Did it not strike you as odd that Barrett had these books in his possession, considering the connection between the details in the diary and said books?

E.T.A. I guess my point was more re: Liverpool Soundings, as that's the only one that contains the relevant info re: the National, IIRC.

[Iconoclast]

Tbf, there are many examples of hoaxing, not merely forgery, but hoaxing, where the perpetrator's in all likelihood didn't bother to do much research at all.

There's this weird notion that you'd have to be reading some rare books to have forged the Maybrick diary, when we know that isn't true, as all of the details were contained within books that you could purchase at the time in almost any half-decent bookstore. You could probably have obtained all of the Maybrick stuff in one lunchtime visit to W.H. Smith and had time to pick up a sandwich!

Right, I'm getting confused with all these threads running. Must be an age thing. Anyway, I'm porting this one over to The Greatest Thread of All (as this thread is universally known as on the Casebook).

You make a fair point about not requiring a large number of books to construct much of the journal. It is predominantly built around the obvious facts which find their way into most Ripper texts. Nevertheless, as has been discussed a multitude of times on This Thread (it's more or less royalty now so I'm giving it capitals) and others (lower case 'cos they're rubbish - except for History vs Maybrick, of course) there are many subtler moments in the journal which are way beyond the reasonable expectations of any forger, whether casual or skilled at their art.

It is only one example, so let's not get hung up on one example, but the journal writer very clearly knows when in the narrative to have Edwin Maybrick return from America. It's very clear in the text that he's been away and he's been away in America. And Harrison (in Harrison II, I think) showed that Edwin was indeed away in America and returned around the time he returned in the journal. Maybe in itself not a mind-blowing entry, but one of many which were subtler than the average fact and therefore may very well point to authenticity rather than hoax.

I'll bet you're a reader of the Liverpool Echo? Their Diego Laurenz postcard is simply impossibly coincidental if Maybrick was not Jack the Spratt McVitie, I promise you.

[Iconoclast]

Yeah, that was among the books I was discussing within W-E's republished works in the 80's. Most of the stories contained in that series had already been published in his other works in the 60's, etc.

It may interest you to know that my family is acquainted with the Devereaux's. I know a lot of the younger Devereaux's, including Michael and Anthony, as we attended St. Austin's together and played football as children.

Did it not strike you as odd that Barrett had these books in his possession, considering the connection between the details in the diary and said books?

E.T.A. I guess my point was more re: Liverpool Soundings, as that's the only one that contains the relevant info re: the National, IIRC.

Fair enough about Liverpool Soundings, though "M, M, and M" is usually the preferred choice as inspiration for the 'hoax'.

It is genuinely interesting that you know the Devereaux's as the daughter's dismay on the Maybrick video is very obvious - it is clear (to me) that Tony was an unwilling participant in all of this. He may very well have acted as a pawn in handing the journal over to Mike, but whether he did or he did not, I think it is profoundly unlikely that he was involved in any other way with the journal. I well understand his family's anger and concerns that his repuation was being impugned in this way.

[andy1867]

Fair enough about Liverpool Soundings, though "M, M, and M" is usually the preferred choice as inspiration for the 'hoax'.

It is genuinely interesting that you know the Devereaux's as the daughter's dismay on the Maybrick video is very obvious - it is clear (to me) that Tony was an unwilling participant in all of this. He may very well have acted as a pawn in handing the journal over to Mike, but whether he did or he did not, I think it is profoundly unlikely that he was involved in any other way with the journal. I well understand his family's anger and concerns that his repuation was being impugned in this way.

See!!!
Look at you two now..chattin' like old mates in a pub...
Ikes thinkin' "Fair enough he's parked his ar*e on the sofa wiv his shellsuit"
Mikes thinkin'...."oooh..maybe Ike knows summatt"
and off it rocks!
I'm off to start a dating website....

[Iconoclast]

See!!!
Look at you two now..chattin' like old mates in a pub...
Ikes thinkin' "Fair enough he's parked his ar*e on the sofa wiv his shellsuit"
Mikes thinkin'...."oooh..maybe Ike knows summatt"
and off it rocks!
I'm off to start a dating website....

You old matchmaker, you! You suckered us both in there with your old sitting-on-the-fence-seeing-both-sides routine. I trust it's going to be a charity website - we wouldn't want you making any money out of old Jack!

[Mike J. G.]

It is only one example, so let's not get hung up on one example, but the journal writer very clearly knows when in the narrative to have Edwin Maybrick return from America. It's very clear in the text that he's been away and he's been away in America. And Harrison (in Harrison II, I think) showed that Edwin was indeed away in America and returned around the time he returned in the journal. Maybe in itself not a mind-blowing entry, but one of many which were subtler than the average fact and therefore may very well point to authenticity rather than hoax.

Without fetching the books in question, I honestly can't recall whether Edwin made an appearance in the W-E series. But it's not far-fetched to assume that such a detail may have been expanded upon in some report on the case, as we know that the poisoning case was very very popular during the relevant period, most of all in Liverpool. There's a chance that whoever wrote the diary had access to this information through the Picton library, which was an amazing source for anything of that sort, (indeed, W-E used that library for much of his own research) and also the library in the city-center.

I think it would make sense that Edwin, along with Michael, would be mentioned as part of that case, by varying sources during Florence's subsequent trial at St. George's.

I guess it would mean that whoever wrote the diary, or someone who helped, actually did a little more research than I'd have given them credit for, but it also isn't impossible for this info to have been available somewhere for one who was interested enough to look.

I'll bet you're a reader of the Liverpool Echo? Their Diego Laurenz postcard is simply impossibly coincidental if Maybrick was not Jack the Spratt McVitie, I promise you.

Not since it jumped ship to Manchester!

There is a vast quantity of newspapers stored at Picton and in the city-center, though. I've rifled through a few of these myself, and there's always a few people on hand to help with any specific area of research you might be doing.

Impossible to rule out, and impossible to confirm, tbh.

[Mike J. G.]

Fair enough about Liverpool Soundings, though "M, M, and M" is usually the preferred choice as inspiration for the 'hoax'.

It is genuinely interesting that you know the Devereaux's as the daughter's dismay on the Maybrick video is very obvious - it is clear (to me) that Tony was an unwilling participant in all of this. He may very well have acted as a pawn in handing the journal over to Mike, but whether he did or he did not, I think it is profoundly unlikely that he was involved in any other way with the journal. I well understand his family's anger and concerns that his repuation was being impugned in this way.

I've never spoken to Tony, but I do remember him being at football games on the fields next to the police club on Riversdale. I'm pretty sure that my parents were on good terms with Tony, as most of the kids' parents were around that time due to us all attending the same tight-knit school.

I've always wondered what I could find out if I did a little sleuthing, but it's honestly a bit of an awkward thing to do when you've not spoken to these people in a long time. I actually saw Michael and Anthony only recently, Anthony I saw in the Rocket pub near Old Swan, and Michael I think still lives in Aigburth with his girlfriend.

I'd always intended to talk to Mike Barrett when he was alive, but never got around to it, but I did briefly see him out and about once or twice.

I'm certain there's likely some people knocking around the pubs here who might have heard a few things about it all.

[David Orsam]

It is only one example, so let's not get hung up on one example, but the journal writer very clearly knows when in the narrative to have Edwin Maybrick return from America. It's very clear in the text that he's been away and he's been away in America. And Harrison (in Harrison II, I think) showed that Edwin was indeed away in America and returned around the time he returned in the journal. Maybe in itself not a mind-blowing entry, but one of many which were subtler than the average fact and therefore may very well point to authenticity rather than hoax.

Always very sad when this once Great Thread, the Greatest Thread of All, is reduced to shabby points which "may well point to authenticity".

I say 'shabby' because the solution is simple. The 1957 book, This Friendless Lady, by Nigel Morland, which has long been put forward as one of the forger's sources, states, at page 40:

"Edwin Maybrick, for whom Florence had always held a great regard, returned from the United States after a visit on business lasting since the previous August. He dined with James the following evening..."

Morland's book also tells us that James' pet name for Florence was 'Bunny' and, often overlooked by proponents of the Diary, that Michael wrote lyrics (i.e. page 7 refers to "the strong religious and moral nature of his lyrics"), something which is said by Diary believers to have been an astonishing piece of knowledge for a forger to have acquired.

[Mike J. G.]

See!!!
Look at you two now..chattin' like old mates in a pub...
Ikes thinkin' "Fair enough he's parked his ar*e on the sofa wiv his shellsuit"
Mikes thinkin'...."oooh..maybe Ike knows summatt"
and off it rocks!
I'm off to start a dating website....

Jack of Hearts would make a great name for a JtR-related dating website!

Alas, though, I'm already happily under the thumb!