The Diary

[RavenDarkendale]

Nothing is impossible to forge, given the skill. But the diary does come closer to convincing me than the watch ever will. Perhaps we can believe one piece of evidence was discovered that may or may not be real, but two separate family secret type discoveries that link like this may be a bit much to accept.

If the diary hasn't been forged, well and good. Experts have been wrong before, as in the Vermeer forgery I mentioned.

The watch being found at close to the same time, revealed along with the diary, makes a little too much convenience for me.

I will give experts the respect of being more learned than I, and I would give anyone the belief that they tell the truth unless I catch them in a lie. I just don't believe in the diary and watch. Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison, both of whom's books I own each make a case for the reality of both the diary and the watch. I just can't see it, that's all.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Nothing is impossible to forge, given the skill. But the diary does come closer to convincing me than the watch ever will.


The watch being found at close to the same time, revealed along with the diary, makes a little too much convenience for me.

That's interesting as many feel the Watch is a more difficult to explain artifact, given its testing history.

I do think if a forger created them near the same time, he or she would have been an idiot to separate them.

[Sally]

Hi Caz

But you are surely not suggesting that the diary penman/woman would have been feeling genuinely murderous or high as a kite as he/she wrote, or even trying to feel that way, if they were busily creating a fake to deceive people and possibly make money? If graphologists claim there are specific signs in handwriting that can indicate a murderous or disturbed personality, then whether it's true or cobblers Koren saw these signs in the diary. So does that suggest the person who penned it faked the signs deliberately to pass the 'test', or were they there by pure coincidence?

No, I don't think I am suggesting that, not specifically. I don't claim to have any real clue as to who wrote the diary, so I suppose it would depend on who wrote it, under what circumstances.

I remember having a conversation some years ago with some conservators at the National Archives who had been involved with the Docklands Exhibition. They were quite sure it was a fake, as I recall - but I confess I know little about the various issues involved.

I suppose the bottom line for me with regard to the graphological interpretation is that I just don't see how it would be possible to detect a murderer via his/her handwriting. Yes, perhaps one might make some obvious observations about state of mind from the emphasis, speed, etc; but quite how an extra bow here, or a missing riser there is going to point to a murderer I can't tell. It's beyond me.

Where are the studies that form the foundation of this 'science'? Perhaps I ought to educate myself on the matter - then my view would undoubtedly develop.

I'm sure you have been asked this question many times before - and I do apologise for being a bore - but who do you think wrote the diary? Do you think we can ever resolve the question?

[RavenDarkendale]

A fact I find interesting is that in the voting on here on casebook as to ripper suspects, James Maybrick is number one, but in the vote on who wrote the diary,(http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3782), Michael Barrett and his wife are neck and neck and in the lead. Both have twice the vote as to authorship of the diary than James Maybrick. Weird.

[caz]

Hi Caz...

...I'm sure you have been asked this question many times before - and I do apologise for being a bore - but who do you think wrote the diary? Do you think we can ever resolve the question?

I'm so sorry Sally, I only just came back to this thread and saw your question.

I don't really have any evidence for who could have written the diary. I do feel it could probably only ever be resolved if someone familiar with the saga were to stumble across the same handwriting somewhere else.

I would rule out Mike, Anne and the other usual modern suspects on the basis of their handwriting not being compatible (for starters!), just as I would rule Maybrick out as the penman on the few available examples I've seen of his handwriting. I don't think there is any evidence that the real James Maybrick had a multiple personality disorder, which I do believe exists but is very rare.

Love,

Caz
X

[ChrisGeorge]

I'm sure you have been asked this question many times before - and I do apologise for being a bore - but who do you think wrote the diary? Do you think we can ever resolve the question?

Hello Sally

At the Trial of James Maybrick held at the Liverpool Cricket Ground in May 2007, noted researcher and Ripperologist Keith Skinner stated enigmatically that on the basis of the evidence he would be "confident the jury would conclude the Diary came out of Battlecrease House" (see Chris Jones's Maybrick A to Z). This would appear to narrow down the possibilities considerably, to someone in the Maybrick household perhaps or to a person or persons who resided in the house in the decades following the Maybricks' occupation of Battlecrease ceased in 1889. We should note that Mr. Skinner did not elucidate either at the Maybrick event or since that time what that evidence might be. Presumably it is some type of documentation.

Best regards

Chris

[Steven Russell]

Hello Sally

At the Trial of James Maybrick held at the Liverpool Cricket Ground in May 2007, noted researcher and Ripperologist Keith Skinner stated enigmatically that on the basis of the evidence he would be "confident the jury would conclude the Diary came out of Battlecrease House" (see Chris Jones's Maybrick A to Z). This would appear to narrow down the possibilities considerably, to someone in the Maybrick household perhaps or to a person or persons who resided in the house in the decades following the Maybricks' occupation of Battlecrease ceased in 1889. We should note that Mr. Skinner did not elucidate either at the Maybrick event or since that time what that evidence might be. Presumably it is some type of documentation.

Best regards

Chris

I came across that particular nugget myself quite recently. Has Mr. Skinner ever indicated that he would be prepared to elaborate?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[ChrisGeorge]

I came across that particular nugget myself quite recently. Has Mr. Skinner ever indicated that he would be prepared to elaborate?

Best wishes,
Steve.

Not so far, Steve. As you may know, Keith Skinner does research for various writers, and it appears that the documentation came to light when he was engaged in such a research project. So whether the information might be made public is not clear.

Chris

[Steven Russell]

Thanks for that, Chris.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Graham]

Even if it could be proven that the Diary did 'come out of' Battlecrease, then that would not be proof that James Maybrick actually wrote it. It has always struck me as very interesting that his brother Michael was a literary bloke to whom the writing of such a document as the Diary would have posed little or no challenge - had he the reason(s) for wishing to do so. I also would love to hear Keith Skinner elaborate just a little more, and wonder if there is some reason why he hasn't, to date.

Feldman followed up a lead regarding the Battlecrease origin of the Diary, but it came to nothing, and he seemed to be lacking his customary stop-at-nothing approach regarding this lead.

Graham

[miakaal4]

well I have read quite a bit of this thread and I must say I am amazed at the scorn that has been piled onto the Diary. The "errors" and "mistakes" are flimsy compared to the suppositions I have read in the books about other so called suspects! The idea that Barnett committed the murders to frighten MJK into staying with him is laughable. But that is the conclusion of at least two Authors. Because Klosowski/Chapman was a poisoner he could have done it! From Inspector Aberline no less!
I'm sure many who wrote here are right, the Diary will never be proved one way or the other, not when the debate drops to sneers.
Metal experts with no axe to grind at all have said the watch is older than the few years that the "moderns" keep writing about.And more than one expert has stated the diary is older than 1987. Info in the diary predates this. It is crazy to think someone would go to all that trouble to frame Maybrick 110 years later. If you study the research done and the people involved in it, I'm sure it would be very difficult if not impossible to refute the watch or the diary. Test after
test has been carried out, and the statement by Soothsayer near the top still holds. No it has NOT been proven a hoax.

[Phil H]

Don't be too credulous, miakaal.

It is the provenance of the Diary in part that is in question.

But isn't it actually too good to be true that a "Diary" of JtR is found? the sheer coincidence that of all the unsolved murders in the world, we should find a self-confessing diary of this one would make me look VERY hard at it.

When I do, what do I find - a tale that adds precisely nothing to our knowledge. That has no facts that could not have been gleaned from published sources, and might well give away its date of composition by what it does contain.

Finally, I found none of those moments when one says -" so that's why that happned"; "that's how he did that". the things that only the murderer would have known, but that give us added insight not into motivation but into the circumstances of the murders.

No, I'd need far more compelling evidence of its authenticity to make me pick it up again.

Phil H

[Iain Wilson]

The "errors" and "mistakes" are flimsy compared to the suppositions I have read in the books about other so called suspects!

The fact still remains that there ARE mistakes which if the diary had been written by the killer would not have been included! It doesn't matter that there are "less mistakes than in other books" - the mistakes are still there and mark this out to be the work of a forger.

Therefore, the compelling mystery surrounding the diary is not "Was it written by Jack the Ripper?" but instead "Who wrote it? When did they write it? Why did they choose Maybrick?"

Cheers,

Iain

[Jason]

i love the diary.....its the best thing to happen to Ripperology ! its a massive annoyance to those who want it removed from the debate, and we have those who have absolute and total faith both in its authenticity and content.

The irony is this, from the way i look at it, neither side has a cat in hells chance of disuading the other side nor do they seem likely to come up with something that will refute those for and against. Thats why i think its such a great find/plant ( delete as appropriate ). There is something about that diary which i cant put my finger on, i have read it a few times now and something tells me it shouldnt be just swept aside. I have read it after reading the reasons why it should be discarded as a fraud, but something still tells me to wait and see. Personally i dont think the diary is finished just yet. I am not saying it is genuine, what i am saying is that it should be considered for some time yet.

i have absolutely no idea whether its real or not, whether its old or new or whether it was written by WG Grace .....the diary thread is up there with the then and now thread on photographs.......flicking through the diary is one of my favourite pastimes !

[RavenDarkendale]

A moment, if I may.

A lot of the research into the validity of the Diary seems to deal with paper and ink dating. Handwriting analysis is a bit foggy. The tone and choice of words is said to reflect a disturbed mind,

OK

There are two things:

1) The Diary is as real as it sounds.
2) The Diary is an out and out forgery.

Taking the first view:
The paper and ink seems to check out, and argue for the Diary being written in a time frame that would make it genuine. I concede the tone and word choices being from a very troubled person. The handwriting? If it doesn't fit Maybrick's writing, we must remember the state of mind of the writer. Also there is reason to argue that Maybrick did not pen the will. And recall this is in favor of the Diary, so we must concede that Maybrick was both the author and JtR by taking this view.

Taking the second view:
The ink and paper analysis merely shows that it could have been written during the time frame. It therefore could be a forgery made at the end of 1888 beginning of 1889. Word and tone can be assumed. I've written poetry concerning various mental disorders I call "Echoes from the Edge." They have be called, and this was conservatively speaking, disturbing. I know people who suffer with the illnesses, and so can write from their POV. The handwriting not matching the will could prove the Diary was forged and the will was not. Taking these points we must concede that the Diary is not written by Maybrick, and had nothing to do with whomever was JtR.

This is at best a 50/50 chance, best being genuine in all respects, at worst a worthless forgery. Mark Twain once wrote: "You pays your money and you takes your chance!" Sound advice

He that believes the diary genuine, let him stick to his conviction.
He that believes the diary a forgery, let him do likewise.

Ah, the power of choice!

God Bless

Raven Darkendale