One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Nick Scovell]

Yes, good point. It just seems far more likely to me that a forger would choose either an acknowledged suspect or someone who, at least, may have been mentioned in one of the primary sources a forger would have used for his research. Deciding on a brand new suspect for his 'enterprise' seems rather beyond the realms of possibility to me!

As for other evidence that supports the diary, all I have to go on are the books I have read about it, and others which forward other suspects, plus a telephone conversation I once had with Shirley Harrison. It was when Mike Barrett ariginally said he forged the diary and I wrote to her expressing my dismay at my top suspect being debunked! She very kindly phoned me to assure me that his confession was nonsense. We talked about the diary and she made a very salient point in that she is one of the people who have actually handled the diary and, she said, it looks, feels totally genuine. This may seem trivial, but to me it smacked of a genuine informed opinion based on instinct and intuition. Very few people, unless I am wrong, have actually touched it and handled it. Perhaps the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

[Nick Scovell]

And as I've just posted on another thread, without the Diary there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to link James Maybrick with the Whitechapel Murders.


Graham

This is exactly the fact that makes me believe it to be genuine!

[Ben]

Hi Nick,

Unfortunately, people are coming up with "brand new suspects" all the time, and invariably, they tend to be "celebrities" or people with a distinctly non-JTR-related claim to fame, hence Sickert, Bernardo, Gully, Eddy...and Maybrick.

I'd also urge caution with Shirley Harrison's instinct and intuition that the diary looks and feels genuine. Whatever personal hunches one might have about the presentation, the actual content of the diary points very strongly in the direction of a forgery, and a modern one at that.

All the best,
Ben

[Nick Scovell]

Unfortunately, people are coming up with "brand new suspects" all the time, and invariably, they tend to be "celebrities" or people with a distinctly non-JTR-related claim to fame, hence Sickert, Bernardo, Gully, Eddy...and Maybrick.

Ah, this I find interesting...

There seems to be be some level of controversy as to what actually constitutes a 'suspect.' Can you elaborate what constitutes a 'new' suspect and what separates them from an 'old' suspect? I have seen books using the term 'alleged' suspect rather than just 'suspect.' It seems odd this - surely a suspect is a suspect? Or, are suspects only regarded as suspects if they have a contemporary suspicion from the police at the time?

[Dan Norder]

It just seems far more likely to me that a forger would choose either an acknowledged suspect or someone who, at least, may have been mentioned in one of the primary sources a forger would have used for his research. Deciding on a brand new suspect for his 'enterprise' seems rather beyond the realms of possibility to me!

If the forger was based in Liverpool, as was almost certainly the case based upon where it first turned up, he or she would have needed a plausible reason for justifying how the diary of Jack the Ripper turned up there instead of in London. Making the Ripper a famous Liverpool resident clears that up quite easily. As Ben says, it's a rather lazy choice.

[Graham]

If the forger was based in Liverpool, as was almost certainly the case based upon where it first turned up, he or she would have needed a plausible reason for justifying how the diary of Jack the Ripper turned up there instead of in London. Making the Ripper a famous Liverpool resident clears that up quite easily. As Ben says, it's a rather lazy choice.

Playing the devil's advocate for the moment, are the Diary and James Maybrick the only known Liverpool Ripper connections?

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

James Kelly was born in Preston and had strong Liverpool connections, Graham. He was educated in Liverpool, and was an apprentice upholsterer there, before moving to London.

[A L Morrison]

Before the diary was published, Maybrick had never been linked to the crimes, had he?

Not directly but the judge who presided over Florence Maybrick's trial was J K Stephen's father James Fitzjames Stephen. This fact has been mentioned in quite a few Ripper books and could have helped inspire a potential forger

[Nick Scovell]

This is all very interesting.

To turn the debate slightly on its head - has anyone come up with a suspect for the forger himself? He/she would have to be a very good one, surely? (certainly bearing in mind Hanna Koren's reactions on first seeing it). And why do it? Surely that is the biggest question that hangs over the diary, if it is a forgery. Plus, if you believe the diary to be a forgery, then the watch must be too. Last thing I read about that was that the scratches were proved to be non-recent.

No-one has made a significant fortune out of it, have they?

[johnsonandrew]

dairy

hi all,
just had a great time reading the throws of debate from you guys, interesting stuff. I have studied JTR for over 20 years and have seen books come and go, the dairy has always stayed in my mind and have just recently seen the old docu from film producer M. Winner. it showed evidence for and against, with an open mind from the leading experts that are still around today. the research team had answers for many of the questions ask, Im sure you all have seen it, the conclusion was genuine by scientists tests and baffled the experts on the JTR case, so much so that the end result for some of the leading ripper experts was it has to be to good to be true, after which they dished it, but did not do there own research but put to press that it was all rubbish hence we get reputations of the writers that want to keep cred, ever since then the dairy has been fools gold to some, the simple answere is they do not no, and run away from it. now people are scared of the thing. it is a shame that it has got all so complicated not just for what it is but through reputaions and ego's. only one person had the guts and determination to see it through and that was was Paul Feldman with the Final Chapter, it was a great book and the research done was mammoth, but no one believed that either and confusion again. the book will never have a final end either way because just in the ripper case itself we are in a maze and can't get out, running around in circles and being given wrong directions by people who think they no better and that to be true, or false in this case.
commence the debate.
cheers.
andy

[The Good Michael]

Excuse me, but The Final Chapter was garbage. That is only my opinion, of course.

Cheers,

Mike

[Graham]

Excuse me, but The Final Chapter was garbage. That is only my opinion, of course.

Cheers,

Mike

Garbage to the dilettante, meat and drink to the connoisseur.

Graham

[Nick Scovell]

Well, Andy, I think you have summed up the situation perfectly! I too read the Final Chapter book and found it most compelling, as well as the original Diary book when first published.

I too have studdied the Ripper case for many years and, if I am perfectly honest, Maybrick and the diary seem to me to be the only true and plausible suspect/explanation, etc. All the other books I have read present their suspects and theories eloquently and with logic and considered opinion, but to me none of them ever made me say to myself; "Yes, I think that's probably right."

The Diary and Maybrick just seemed to click for me. Added to the fact that there has never been a scientific test done on the Diary that says, without a shadow of a doubt, that this could NOT have been written when it purpots to be written leads me to believe that the mystery has been solved.

One day that may occur, and I may eat my words. But I feel sure that if the Diary is a modern forgery, it would have been completely debunked as one by now and Maybrick's name would be expunged from any Ripper related book or website. For the moment, however, I can confidently say that I know who Jack the Ripper was!

Nick

[Varqm]

The question really is prove it that the diary is genuine instead of asking to prove that it is a fake. People have it reversed. Amazing. Otherwise it's useless.

[johnsonandrew]

maybrick dairy

hi Nick.
I am glad someone still has an open mind and not just a, I know for a fact with no room for any other thought on the case. what has come from the dairy has many paths to decipher, as you say no one has 100% found it to be faked. now to someone studying to case for real must continue to find new leads from what we have and to follow a path that just might take us on to new grounds in the case, of course a lot research will have to be done on any new path one might follow, the mind set of most will not further the investigation. I myself have been researching from the dairy, it concerns the images on MJK's wall, i found in a sketch from Sickert, three images, a number and two letters that to me look the same as what is on the back wall to MJK's wall. I have posted on this subject and had some interesting comments that of the grain, the missing original photo. many believe there is nothing on the wall and do not want to bring it up again but not 100% proof shows there is not some sort of evidence on the wall. this is just my observation and have started a book on the subject, how sickert is involved or does things change with Maybrick is the many questions that I must look into, thats why we all are interested in the case because we do not know what the hell happened here.
I noticed you live in Fareham, so do I.
cheers.
andy