One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[perrymason]

Since when does a diary have entries without individual dates logged?

Since it would seem that all of the obscure and supposedly incriminating references are within the pages found, why would any pages be ripped out at all?

Why doesnt the ink test definatively from that period?

Cheers.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I would like to thank the Diary creator[s] for sparing us the first 48 pages of twaddle.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom Mitchell]

Would she have anything to say about your apparent inability to go right from the start and instead take two tries at every reply? Most men do manage to get the job done the first time without having to come back and try again later.
Is the problem just being quick on the draw and after the first premature response, you come back hopefully with more conviction?

Ally,

Like so many others - you seem to know me so well!

Hey - keep 'em coming, mate ...

Cheers,

Tom

[Tom Mitchell]

Hi All,

I would like to thank the Diary creator[s] for sparing us the first 48 pages of twaddle.

Regards,

Simon

Yes, and I (hic!) would like to thank them for 65 pages for pure genius (burp!).


PS Simon, were you the guy who first mentioned initials on the wall back in 1988, or am I getting myself mixed up again?

[Doppelganger]

greetings all ,forgive me if this has been brought up(& missed by me)but didn`t the guy who wrote the Diary confess?

[Tom Mitchell]

Since when does a diary have entries without individual dates logged?
Cheers.

Michael,

Since when does the diary refer to itself as a diary?

That was a publishing device designed to sell more books.

Cheers,

Tom

[Tom Mitchell]

greetings all ,forgive me if this has been brought up(& missed by me)but didn`t the guy who wrote the Diary confess?

Doppelgangar,

Not all that glitters is gold.

He retracted it two hours later (where have I heard that before?), and when giving the details of his fraud, he got endless details wrong (hey - we're seeing a theme here!).

Cheers,

Tom

[Tom Mitchell]

So there we are - 120 years ago today the nation was waking up to the first of the C5, and here we are 120 years later no nearer confirming for certain what everyone seems to now know - that James Maybrick was our author of the crimes.

We need to get a bit of clarity around the handwriting, sure (some examples of his casual hand would be good), but the diary is loaded with juicy details which only James Maybrick as the killer or a modern day forger with a huge propensity for research could possibly have known (it couldn't have been forged at the time of the crimes, of course, as there is detail in there unpublished before 1987, and if a member of the police force had written it in the late 1800s, how would they have access to the minutiae of Maybrick's family life?).

And, of course, we need to deal with the unlikely coincidence of the Fido-Forger axis.

Other than that, it's hard evidence (never disproven to be late 1800s in material or ink), no errors are incontrovertible (as you guys keep reassuring me), and it provides means, motive, and opportunity for a guy who history tells us was definitely there at the time of the crimes.

Bang to rights, Jimmy Boy!

PS Apologies for dodgy spelling - has this Casebook got a spellchecker?

[Billy Bulger]

The Farthings

Hi Tom , wonderful article, well argued and highly entertaining.
I, too, read Feldman's book on the Maybrick Diary and came away at least open to the idea that Jim was Jack. However, I may be wrong (its been a while since I read The Final Chapter) but didnt the diarist mentioned farthings at Annie Chapman's feet? If he did indeed do this then that entry alone condemns the entire diary to the rank of forgery or at the very least casts strong doubt on its authenticity. There seems to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) to be a general concensus among historians that no money was found about the feet of the Ripper's second canonical victim.

[Omlor]

"...a guy who history tells us was definitely there at the time of the crimes."

Where?


--John

PS: I don't know what you think constitutes "huge," but there's not a single verifiable fact anywhere in the diary that could not have been easily found in already published sources by the time the book appeared. Sorry, Tom. In the name of your own desire to believe this nonsense, you are just making stuff up. That's fine, of course. It's your right to fantasize. But, as always, I do hope no one here is taking any of this seriously or is conned by this cheap hoax.

[Tom Mitchell]

Hi Tom , wonderful article, well argued and highly entertaining.
I, too, read Feldman's book on the Maybrick Diary and came away at least open to the idea that Jim was Jack. However, I may be wrong (its been a while since I read The Final Chapter) but didnt the diarist mentioned farthings at Annie Chapman's feet? If he did indeed do this then that entry alone condemns the entire diary to the rank of forgery or at the very least casts strong doubt on its authenticity. There seems to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) to be a general concensus among historians that no money was found about the feet of the Ripper's second canonical victim.

Thanks for the support, Billy (Lord knows you need it on this site).

You are quite right to note the farthings as an issue. Their existence in truth or in folklore remains in debate (from my controversial 'incontrovertible' standpoint). I know that the body of opinion is against the farthings having ever been there, and that obviously would cripple the diary if it were ever so well proven.

There was some support from the Inspector who in 1889 suggested keeping a 'watching brief' over another ghastly murder as (and this from recall), "The farthings found were similar to the Chapman case". Writers have claimed that he was on annual leave at the time of the Chapman murder and therefore had just bought into the folklore which had already built up around the first murder. Like so many aspects of the mystery, it (I believe) does remain a mystery.

It's still 'up for grabs' in my book, albeit it weakens its pages when added to the handwriting problem and Mr Omlor's three wise men entries (see earlier in the thread) after the Eddowes murder.

Cheers, Billy - great post.

Tom

[Ben]

everyone seems to now know - that James Maybrick was our author of the crimes.

Hilarious, Tom!

We need to get a bit of clarity around the handwriting, sure (some examples of his casual hand would be good), but the diary is loaded with juicy details which only James Maybrick as the killer or a modern day forger with a huge propensity for research

Um, well, no, that isn't true at all. It's loaded with glaring anachronisms, amateurish, easy-to-find details on the ripper case and knowledge of the Maybrick case that certainly did not require anything resembling "a huge propensity for research".

Other than that, it's hard evidence

...Of a modern forgery. We know.

and it provides means, motive, and opportunity for a guy who history tells us was definitely there at the time of the crimes

What do you mean "it" provides? The diary? But what if it's a fake? The "means, motive and opportunity" would then be predicated entirely upon the contents of the diary, and even then you'd have an alarmingly tough job aligning that "motive" with those of other serial killers who simply killed because they enjoyed it.

a guy who history tells us was definitely there at the time of the crimes.

Where? In England - probably in the North of England? Not really narrowing it down here. You appear now to have acknowledged more than once that the diary is a forgery - specifically in response to your inquiry about the list of Eddowes' accessories which the hoaxer clearly had in front of him - so why keep on with the "hard evidence" nonsense?

Regards,
Ben

[Tom Mitchell]

Hilarious, Tom!

You appear now to have acknowledged more than once that the diary is a forgery - specifically in response to your inquiry about the list of Eddowes' accessories which the hoaxer clearly had in front of him - so why keep on with the "hard evidence" nonsense?

Regards,
Ben

Ben,

I think it's the illness, you know ... it keeps coming back.

Mad Tam

[Tom Mitchell]

"...a guy who history tells us was definitely there at the time of the crimes."

Where?


--John

PS: I don't know what you think constitutes "huge," but there's not a single verifiable fact anywhere in the diary that could not have been easily found in already published sources by the time the book appeared. Sorry, Tom. In the name of your own desire to believe this nonsense, you are just making stuff up. That's fine, of course. It's your right to fantasize. But, as always, I do hope no one here is taking any of this seriously or is conned by this cheap hoax.

Hi John,

Whitechapel (his business partner confirmed it, was he called Gustav Witt or something? - again this is all from memory).

The list of obscure detail which gets backed up by equally-obscure references includes (from my first posting):

1) The reference to Gladys being unwell ‘again’
2) The knowledge that the 1889 Grand National could well have been the fastest James Maybrick had ever seen
3) The reference to Maybrick bring away at Christmas 1888
4) The knowledge of when his brother Thomas was and was not in America
5) The constant references to Michael being in London when he could have been elsewhere
6) The use of ‘Sir Jim’
7) The reference to Maybrick as ‘May’

Just let me know which book or books contained this stuff, and we're sorted.

Actually, not quite sorted, if you can do that, I'll get the diary out again and check to see if there are any others.



But, John, please do ANSWER the challenge for us all. Please don't just rubbish it like it doesn't exist (as if you or anyone else on this Casebook would do that!).

Cheers,

Tom

[Omlor]

Tom,

You're making stuff up again. Neither Witt nor anyone else has ever confirmed that Maybrick was anywhere near Whitechapel when the murders occurred. That's a fantasy. Please stop doing that.

He was, of course, in England. But then, so were millions of others.

As for your list...

1, 3, 4, and 5 can all be found in a single book, along with many of the other details in the diary and some actual phrases as well. The book is The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick by Bernard Ryan. It was published in 1977 and was readily available at the time the diary appeared.

There is no documented reference anywhere of anyone ever calling James "Sir Jim" or of his ever calling himself that (again, you must stop just saying these things).

The first syllable of his name is also the word May. You don't need any sources to know that.

And the line you write about the Grand National is not a clear fact, since you use the phrase "could well have been."

All done.

I'm off to the golf course,

--John