The Diary

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I wondered when someone was going to point that out. Again, for someone who is supposed to be an historian, who relies on documentary evidence, Phil does seem to miss a hell of a lot.

Actually Tempus I find Phil H.'s posts in general to be well reasoned and well thought out, superb actually. Except when it comes to Maybrick, and I don't doubt it's only because it's not his area of interest. That's not meant to be nasty Phil. It's just that a few of us have studied the "real" Maybrick case, the back story of how the Diary and the Watch came into the light of day, and of course the artifacts themselves for a loooooong time. I just gave a talk on the sorry tale of the testing debacles, AFI in particular. I've been at it for over fifteen years, and it's my area of interest in the Ripper case. Things that interest others on the Casebook don't fascinate me. I don't read much true crime or about SK's other than JtR.

It's been twenty years since Barrett made that call to London, and we are no closer to a resolution. That's amazing in and of itself.

An Inconvenient Book: Everything You Wanted to Know About the Diary Tests But Were Afraid to Ask (York 2012) Only the intro is up at the moment.

http://jtrforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=636

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Tempus



Specifically? Really? The diarist specifically states that he left the initials 'FM', the 'F' being on Kelly's arm?

Well I never. The things you learn on Casebook.

Sally, people may have spotted the F on the arm before, but what they didn't know is the fact that coupled with the chemise, arm, and thigh, it creates an FM. Only the diarist and I (because I have read the passage correctly) knew this. That is why it was never mentioned on here until I got here. Every discussion before this has focussed on the FM on the wall, which is not what the diarist was referring to.

Again you contradict yourself. You talk of an FM, but then only mention the F on the arm. So where do you think the M is then?!!!


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Sally]

Tempus

an FM that no one has ever seen before, and that is specifically refered to by the diarist

Specifically? Really? The diarist specifically states that he left the initials 'FM', the 'F' being on Kelly's arm?

Well I never. The things you learn on Casebook.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

To say he had no ties to the area is demonstrably false. Not a matter of opinion, but of historical record.

Maybrick did extensive business over the years for a cotton broker that had their London office in Whitechapel, Cullum Street to be precise. His "wife" lived in Whitechapel when he met her and she later lived at 55 Bromley. The affair lasted for almost 20 years and there were 3-5 children as a result of it.

So Maybrick was a reasonably frequent visitor to the Whitechapel area. That's not even including visits to his brother at Wellington Mansions.

This had to be excised from my talk at York. (I am in the process of getting all my notes up in the moderated Maybrick forums at JTRForums.) The section was to be entitled "Let's Meet Those Wild and Wacky Maybricks" and was co-written by Livia Trivia, Mark Ripper, Katja Nieder and myself. If something is wrong it's safe to assume I wrote it....

Sarah Ann Robertson (1837-1927) Sarah Ann is an interesting person in a case chock full of interesting characters. There is little doubt she was James Maybrick's mistress and for all intents and purposes passed for his wife at times. Some believe she was actually married to James and never divorced, making Maybrick not only an adulterer but a bigamist as well. In the 1850s she was living in Tower Hamlets on the edge of Whitechapel and probably met James when he moved to London in 1858 to work in a shipbroker's office. She lived with him off and on for almost 20 years and it is alleged she bore him 5 children, two of them after his marriage to Florence. It is possible that she was the woman Florence learned about in 1887, leading Florence to sever marital relations with her husband. And if the Diary is to be believed, this and Florence's own infidelities were the impetus that lead to the series of gruesome murders of prostitutes we now know as the "Autumn of Terror" in 1888 Whitechapel. Certainly many of Sarah Ann's relatives believed she was married to James Maybrick; her aunt's husband, Thomas Conconi's 1868 will has a bequest to "Sarah Ann Maybrick, the wife of James Maybrick of Old Hall Street Liverpool". Keith Skinner has tracked down Sarah Ann's Bible containing the touching note "To my darling Piggy. From her affectionate husband James Maybrick. On her birthday August 2nd 1865". I note the Americanized date and the Piggy/Bunny zoomorphic nicknames. According to Trevor Christie (Etched in Arsenic) AFTER his honeymoon James went to Sarah Ann and "informed her of his marriage in what must have been a stormy scene. Amid tears and recriminations he promised to give her an allowance of Ł100 a year to support his children, but this was never paid regularly." A stand up guy was James Maybrick..... In the 1871 census Sarah Ann Maybrick is listed as a "merchant clerk's wife" living with her aunt and uncle, the Conconi's at 55 Bromley Street, Commercial Road London. Please note the location in terms of Whitechapel. At her death in 1927 she was listed as "Sarah Ann Maybrick, otherwise Robertson." There is no mention of her in the Diary, but the mysterious woman referred to as "mine" may well be Sarah Ann Robertson. Throughout the diary, Maybrick is a man more sinned against, than sinning.

I wondered when someone was going to point that out. Again, for someone who is supposed to be an historian, who relies on documentary evidence, Phil does seem to miss a hell of a lot.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Tempus the invitatuion to PM our experts is for you. I claim nothing for
myself.

Constantly PMing, 'our experts' is something of a waste of time. The subject matter that I have presented needs to be discussed face to face.

Nothing is "lucky " for me - I simply state that the diary is a valueless distraction unless proven by its partisans to be relevant.

It already has been proven to be relevant, but you keep ignoring the facts. If something is irrelevant because it has not been proven, then why do you waste your time on all the other threads. There is no evidence against any of them!

I seem to perceive a troll in you - just out to create mischief.

Actually, I was thinking the same about you. To suggest that someone is a troll after they have shown you two letters that match the handwriting of the diary, an FM that no one has ever seen before, and that is specifically refered to by the diarist, is a bit pathetic.

What exactly have you offered up?

Phil H

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Without the diary Maybrick has never been a suspect and has no ties to the area

To say he had no ties to the area is demonstrably false. Not a matter of opinion, but of historical record.

Maybrick did extensive business over the years for a cotton broker that had their London office in Whitechapel, Cullum Street to be precise. His "wife" lived in Whitechapel when he met her and she later lived at 55 Bromley. The affair lasted for almost 20 years and there were 3-5 children as a result of it.

So Maybrick was a reasonably frequent visitor to the Whitechapel area. That's not even including visits to his brother at Wellington Mansions.

This had to be excised from my talk at York. (I am in the process of getting all my notes up in the moderated Maybrick forums at JTRForums.) The section was to be entitled "Let's Meet Those Wild and Wacky Maybricks" and was co-written by Livia Trivia, Mark Ripper, Katja Nieder and myself. If something is wrong it's safe to assume I wrote it....

Sarah Ann Robertson (1837-1927) Sarah Ann is an interesting person in a case chock full of interesting characters. There is little doubt she was James Maybrick's mistress and for all intents and purposes passed for his wife at times. Some believe she was actually married to James and never divorced, making Maybrick not only an adulterer but a bigamist as well. In the 1850s she was living in Tower Hamlets on the edge of Whitechapel and probably met James when he moved to London in 1858 to work in a shipbroker's office. She lived with him off and on for almost 20 years and it is alleged she bore him 5 children, two of them after his marriage to Florence. It is possible that she was the woman Florence learned about in 1887, leading Florence to sever marital relations with her husband. And if the Diary is to be believed, this and Florence's own infidelities were the impetus that lead to the series of gruesome murders of prostitutes we now know as the "Autumn of Terror" in 1888 Whitechapel. Certainly many of Sarah Ann's relatives believed she was married to James Maybrick; her aunt's husband, Thomas Conconi's 1868 will has a bequest to "Sarah Ann Maybrick, the wife of James Maybrick of Old Hall Street Liverpool". Keith Skinner has tracked down Sarah Ann's Bible containing the touching note "To my darling Piggy. From her affectionate husband James Maybrick. On her birthday August 2nd 1865". I note the Americanized date and the Piggy/Bunny zoomorphic nicknames. According to Trevor Christie (Etched in Arsenic) AFTER his honeymoon James went to Sarah Ann and "informed her of his marriage in what must have been a stormy scene. Amid tears and recriminations he promised to give her an allowance of Ł100 a year to support his children, but this was never paid regularly." A stand up guy was James Maybrick..... In the 1871 census Sarah Ann Maybrick is listed as a "merchant clerk's wife" living with her aunt and uncle, the Conconi's at 55 Bromley Street, Commercial Road London. Please note the location in terms of Whitechapel. At her death in 1927 she was listed as "Sarah Ann Maybrick, otherwise Robertson." There is no mention of her in the Diary, but the mysterious woman referred to as "mine" may well be Sarah Ann Robertson. Throughout the diary, Maybrick is a man more sinned against, than sinning.

[Phil H]

Tempus the invitatuion to PM our experts is for you. I claim nothing for
myself.

Nothing is "lucky " for me - I simply state that the diary is a valueless distraction unless proven by its partisans to be relevant.

I seem to perceive a troll in you - just out to create mischief.

Phil H

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Tempus - I don't have to prove ANYTHING.

No. Which is extremely lucky for you.

The whole onus is on YOU and your colleagues who believe in the "diary" to demonstrate that your contention is true.

And we are doing so, Phil, but you keep ignoring and dismissing everything.

That is not my view, it is the established approach of the scholarly and art worlds.

Tell you what, try PMing Messrs Evans, Rumbelow, Skinner, Begg, Fido, Sugden and other published authors, and seek their views. Do they agree with you?


Anytime, Phil. I am more than happy to argue basic scene-of-crime facts with anyone. Let's see if it happens, shall we? The invitation is there.

Phil H

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Phil H]

Tempus - I don't have to prove ANYTHING.

The whole onus is on YOU and your colleagues who believe in the "diary" to demonstrate that your contention is true.

That is not my view, it is the established approach of the scholarly and art worlds.

Tell you what, try PMing Messrs Evans, Rumbelow, Skinner, Begg, Fido, Sugden and other published authors, and seek their views. Do they agree with you?

Edited to add:

But how can we prove it genuine if we don't evaluate it or take it into account? Really, Phil, think about what you are saying.

How you spend your time is your choice. Just stop pushing the diary as if it were already accepted by anyone with any discrimination or without a vested interest.

Phil H

[Tempus omnia revelat]

We cannot ignore the diary or the watch. Apart from the piece of Eddows apron
they may be the only objective evidence that has survived.
There are some things around the diary that are suspicious. The timing of its appearence. The obscure poem that Barratt had in his loft. The foggy recent history around the buying of the watch.
However, these things are far outweighed by the obvious madness within the book. How do you fake insanity like that?


You can't, miakaal4. At least, not unless, as a forger, you have some of those traits already inside of you. That is one of the reasons why it is ridiculous to say it could be easily faked. People who say this simply don't understand the mentality that any forger would have had to have had in order to fake such a document.

The lack of motivation to frame a cotton merchant. Not a doctor??
The absence of the "forger". If I had forged it, I bet I could make a lot of money on TV and Net saying how and why I did it!
These things need to be cleared up one way or another.
Maybrick was no fool, but just how clever was he?
He worries about getting blood on his clothes, and tells us he will have to delay his plan. Why would a forger do that?
Maybrick is excited about breaking out of the constricting bands of being British Middle Class in the late Victorian era, gleefully calling his plans, "dirty deeds". Later he bemoans the efforts to maintain his respectability.
Within the diary he seemed desparate to prove he was the killer.
Referring to his letter to the newspapers he says, "Believe I will send another. Include my funny little rhyme. That will convince them that it is the truth I tell." But he didn't send any rhyme as far as we know, so why would a forger say he would?

It is difficult, as you infer, to know whether or not any 'ryhmes' were sent to the police, many of the letters have, probably, since been lost. However, just because some says ' I believe that I will send Central another', it doesn't necessarily mean that they did. Remember the switching mind.

These are just a couple of random things about the diary that need to be answered properly.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Tempus omnia revelat]

I have stated the obvious so often that i grow tired of repeating it.

You haven't stated anything, Phil. All that you have stated is that you think the diary was faked around the picture of MJK. But you failed to tell us when you first came to that conclusion.

The diary has no provenance and test have failed to prove its age or authenticity, thus it CANNOT BE REGARDED AS EVIDENCE. If you want to waste you time on it, fine, but no one else has to, or has to give it the slightest credence. Without the diary Maybrick has never been a suspect and has no ties to the area, the victims or the crimes.

As such, they have failed to prove that it is a forgery, either, Phil. If it was that obvious a forgery - as people like you insist - then it would have been proven a fake straight away. However, we are still here some twenty years later with no sign of a forger or anything akin to proof that it has been faked. We do, however, constantly keep get more and more evidence - and remarkable coincidences - that only supports the diary. Has it ever occured to you that the reason I and others can keep coming up with this stuff is that there are actually things out there to find? Which is more than can be said for any other suspect on here.

It cannot be and should not be discussed or debated at this stage, in the same breath as (say) the marginalia or material from the official files.

Why not? Again your argument relies on your ability to ignore and misunderstand things that are right in front of you.

The marginalia has provenance and (see latest Ripperologist) has been demonstrated by experts to be authentic. It is now accepted as such. The official files are what they are, records from the time. the "diary" is not such an artefact/record.

The marginalia doesn't prove a thing, Phil. The word 'marginalia' should give you a clue as to its importance. Again you talk of documents being records of the time whilst conveniently ignoring things that are in actual photos 'of the time'.

Nor is it ON to completely ignore the thing, like you are advocating.

I strongly disagree. The "diary" has NO STATUS - we cannot evaluate it or take it into account because we do not know it is genuine. Unless and until that is shown, taking account of it is a WASTE OF TIME.

But how can we prove it genuine if we don't evaluate it or take it into account? Really, Phil, think about what you are saying.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[John Wheat]

Got to agree with Phil H
The diary cannot be reguarded as evidence until its proved that it isn't a fake.

Cheers John

[Phil H]

Why is it so unlikely to be true. Again you state things with out offering up anything. Why is James Maybrick any less likely to be the ripper than any of the other candidates that are lauded on here?

I have stated the obvious so often that i grow tired of repeating it.

The diary has no provenance and test have failed to prove its age or authenticity, thus it CANNOT BE REGARDED AS EVIDENCE. If you want to waste you time on it, fine, but no one else has to, or has to give it the slightest credence. Without the diary Maybrick has never been a suspect and has no ties to the area, the victims or the crimes.

It cannot be and should not be discussed or debated at this stage, in the same breath as (say) the marginalia or material from the official files.

Why not? Again your argument relies on your ability to ignore and misunderstand things that are right in front of you.

The marginalia has provenance and (see latest Ripperologist) has been demonstrated by experts to be authentic. It is now accepted as such. The official files are what they are, records from the time. the "diary" is not such an artefact/record.

Nor is it ON to completely ignore the thing, like you are advocating.

I strongly disagree. The "diary" has NO STATUS - we cannot evaluate it or take it into account because we do not know it is genuine. Unless and until that is shown, taking account of it is a WASTE OF TIME.

Edited to add:

We cannot ignore the diary or the watch. Apart from the piece of Eddows apron
they may be the only objective evidence that has survived.

Eddowes apron is eddowes apron - orins attested. The GSG may or may not be connected - unproven.

The diary and the watch have no status, no provenance and no proven authenticity (see above) so CANNOT be taken into account by any SERIOUS STUDENT.

However, these things are far outweighed by the obvious madness within the book. How do you fake insanity like that?

It's called writing fiction, miakaal. People do it all the time. Sells well.

The lack of motivation to frame a cotton merchant. Not a doctor??

But there is a great deal of material available given Mrs Maybrick's trial and her celebrity.

These things need to be cleared up one way or another.

If people want to spend time on it, sobeit. Just don't claim things for it that aren't proven and/or suggest that there is an obligation for anyone to do anything about the "diary" unless and until you can prove it genuine and gain acceptance for it. responsibility yours not mine.

Phil H

[miakaal4]

We cannot ignore the diary or the watch. Apart from the piece of Eddows apron
they may be the only objective evidence that has survived.
There are some things around the diary that are suspicious. The timing of its appearence. The obscure poem that Barratt had in his loft. The foggy recent history around the buying of the watch.
However, these things are far outweighed by the obvious madness within the book. How do you fake insanity like that?
The lack of motivation to frame a cotton merchant. Not a doctor??
The absence of the "forger". If I had forged it, I bet I could make a lot of money on TV and Net saying how and why I did it!
These things need to be cleared up one way or another.
Maybrick was no fool, but just how clever was he?
He worries about getting blood on his clothes, and tells us he will have to delay his plan. Why would a forger do that?
Maybrick is excited about breaking out of the constricting bands of being British Middle Class in the late Victorian era, gleefully calling his plans, "dirty deeds". Later he bemoans the efforts to maintain his respectability.
Within the diary he seemed desparate to prove he was the killer.
Referring to his letter to the newspapers he says, "Believe I will send another. Include my funny little rhyme. That will convince them that it is the truth I tell." But he didn't send any rhyme as far as we know, so why would a forger say he would?
These are just a couple of random things about the diary that need to be answered properly.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

On the contrary Tempus - it is because it is SO unlikely to be true that some of us want to remind newcomers to the subject that the "Diary" (so-called) is controversial and should be treated with the greatest caution if not avoided altogether at this stage.

Why is it so unlikely to be true. Again you state things with out offering up anything. Why is James Maybrick any less likely to be the ripper than any of the other candidates that are lauded on here?

It cannot be and should not be discussed or debated at this stage, in the same breath as (say) the marginalia or material from the official files.

Why not? Again your argument relies on your ability to ignore and misunderstand things that are right in front of you.

Yet some of you promote the "Diary" as if it were accepted, should be used as the basis of sensible reasoning or as evidence already. That is not on. That is why I take issue so strongly.

Nor is it ON to completely ignore the thing, like you are advocating.

Neither is Maybrick, in my view established as a suspect any more than Carroll or Barnardo.

Phil H

Kind regards,

Tempus