The Diary

[Tempus omnia revelat]

You're straying into Patricia Cornwell territory my friend. Proving that the diarist may have written one or more Ripper letters is not the same thing as proving the s/he was the Ripper.

No. But it would prove that whoever wrote the diary was sending letters to the police of the time and, therefore, around at the same time the killings took place (i.e., it's not a modern forgery). That surely would be a leap forward. No?


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

If it was written to portray James Maybrick as Jack The Ripper, it is no longer convincing.

Hey Graham - good to see you.

A snippet from my talk at York:

"I would suggest that the Diarist wrote as if he really didn't care all that
much about what his audience wanted to read and wanted to believe. He's not trying to prove nuthin' to nobody. In my opinion the intended audience is simply the Diarist. I would ask the question whether the true focus of the Diary is Jack the Ripper or the "James Maybrick" the Diarist purports to be. It's clear that the Diarist is meant to be James Maybrick but it is never said
explicitly. It reads like a poorly written novel if you are talking about plot
development and creative writing. It's certainly not a diary. Paul Begg described it as "a sort of confessional into which the supposed author wrote and perhaps exorcized his thoughts and emotions". The handwriting, far from being uniform, changes erratically from a controlled steady hand to a wildness, marked by blots and slashes. The Diarist shifts from emotional tenderness to acts of cannibalism; he's letting it all hang out in a matter of fact if flowery style. There are no dated entries; in fact some entries may
have been written at the same time. None of the victims is dignified with a name save for Kelly towards the end.

In brief, it's nothing like what you would normally associate with a diary. Maybrick, or whoever, does say at the end that he thinks the Diary will have a cautionary value after his death, but the majority of the text is written without thinking of the potential audience, and the diary becomes a bit of a nuisance to him at the end, and he thinks of destroying it. I hear echoes
of Anne's attempt to burn it in the Barrett's fireplace.....A gas fired one no less...

I believe a proper forger would have started by explicitly stating the facts of the JtR and Maybrick cases so that we know we're looking at the real deal, and then woven in this emotional roller coaster. Instead the Diarist's universe revolves strictly around himself. Cringe inducing rhymes are juxtaposed with furious and blood seeking outbursts. The Diarist rails against an unjust God; he's a third rate King Lear. "One day God will answer to me, so help me." Some have said it just doesn't ring true, unlike something the "real" Jack would have written by implication.. Just what, pray tell, does the "stereotypical Ripper" diarist sound like? "

[Graham]

Being retired, and having sod-all else to do, over the past couple of days I re-read the 'Diary'. Hmmmm, yes, well. I recall the pre-crash Forum and the heated debates about its authenticity, or lack of it, and I recall Paul Feldman, Melvyn Harris, Omlor, Caz and others, and the incredibly vituperative discussions (arguments? slanging matches?) that went on at the time. I actually liked Paul Feldman's book, if for no other reason than he was totally dedicated to his cause. I like enthusiasts.

But was the 'Diary' written (a) by Maybrick and (b) by Jack The Ripper? Hate to say it, but 'no' to both questions. It simply doesn't seem 'right'. There are, as Feldman points out, many references to Maybrick's life and family that perhaps weren't widely known prior to the discovery of the 'Diary', but to me many of them just seem slightly too neat. Too contrived, if you will. It's as if whoever wrote the thing was including snippets such as the continued ill-health of his daughter to convince whoever the 'readership' might have been that here, without doubt, is the genuine James Maybrick writing about a small aspect of his family life to give the 'Diary' a degree of verisimilitude. But it doesn't have the same ring about it as it did when I first read the 'Diary'. Maybe I've just become more cynical in me old age.

I always reckoned that the 'Diary' is not a modern fake, but nevertheless a fake I believe it is. If it was written to portray James Maybrick as Jack The Ripper, it is no longer convincing. However, I do believe that although it is a fake and not written by Jack The Ripper, it is an old production and it was almost certainly written by someone who knew him well. Who that 'someone' was, I have not the faintest idea - but it wasn't James Maybrick. For what purpose it was written, I also haven't the faintest clue. But I do not believe it was written with profit in mind. I also do not believe that any member of the Barrett family produced it.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts based on a gut feeling.

Incidentally, I do know from a former business-connection in the ink-making trade that Alec Voller formerly of Diamine Inks Ltd, was totally, 101% convinced, that the 'Diary' had not been written within the last 80 or 90 years, and he was speaking of his examination of the ink used to write it which he made 20 years ago. I respect his diagnosis.

Graham

[RavenDarkendale]

You're straying into Patricia Cornwell territory my friend. Proving that the diarist may have written one or more Ripper letters is not the same thing as proving the s/he was the Ripper.

Very true. It didn't prove Sickert guilty of being JtR, and it is shaky ground on which to link Maybrick or whoever wrote the diary to JtR...

[RavenDarkendale]

@ Tempus

So you have a book out? What title?

@ miakaal4 If we start with the premise that Maybrick wrote the diary (I have my doubts), then Flo's mother stealing it as a leverage tool to hopefully free Flo is a solid suggestion. (I believe Flo absolutely innocent of murder, adultery quite another, ahem, matter) As you say that didn't work... Or did it? Florence Maybrick was sentenced to hang, had that sentence commuted to life in prison, and only served 15 years...

God bless

RD

[Iain Wilson]

letters sent to the police of the time that match the handwritting of the diary.

You're straying into Patricia Cornwell territory my friend. Proving that the diarist may have written one or more Ripper letters is not the same thing as proving the s/he was the Ripper.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

@Tempus

I've been unable to post for awhile (laptop stolen in Augusta, GA) but I never saw your response to this:

If your mind is really open, consider these scenarios:

List of possible scenarios:

1) The Diary is genuine, written by James Maybrick who was the Ripper
2) The Diary was written by James Maybrick, who angry with his wife flaunting her affair, fantasizes about the Ripper
3) The Diary was written by the Ripper, and Maybrick has nothing to do with it, JtR learning about the Maybrick mess through gossip
4) The Diary was faked by a contemporary who knew Maybrick was the Ripper
5) The Diary was faked by Florence's lover, hoping to implicate Maybrick
6) The Diary was faked sometime between 1888 and 1921 just for the hell of it
7) The Diary is a modern fake that was so well done it confounds even the experts
8) And speaking of point 7, we would have to add bullet points for every person involved who might have faked the Diary

It being real or faked has thus layers of truth or deception. I stand by my own statement that nothing is impossible to fake given time, resources, and skill. I believe it could be faked, and lean towards point 6

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

Hi RaveDarkdale!


Believe me, I can assure you that all the scenarios you have listed above (and a few more besides) have run through my mind at some time or another. I think the common (mis)conception amongst people who are anti the diary is that us 'pro-diaryists' seem to jump into this argument without thinking of all the other possibilities. That is complete and utter rubbish. We are not stupid. We do know that people can fake things. The point remains, however, that when we study this diary there are circumstances and evidence that crop up time and time again to support this diary and the notion that Maybrick was the ripper - including FMs in pictures that no one has mentioned before and letters sent to the police of the time that match the handwritting of the diary.

Now, whilst this evidence is not conclusive, it does mean (in my book) that we should be giving spending a bit more time - and effort - on it than some people have been up doing up till now.

Whether these things can be gleaned by being clever and spotting things in photographs that no one has spotted, or by doing lots of research is irrelevant. The point is you do not know whether that is the case or not. So until you know for sure, the last thing you should do is forget about it all together, especially if there is the possibility that it well may be genuine.

All your points above a very valid, RavenDarkendale, but, in my personal opinion,(which is based on years of endless research) I believe that the real truth is closer to number 1.



Kind regards,


Tempus

[miakaal4]

Hi to RavenDarkendale,
Your question is a good one because one can only at this time guess at the answer. I personally think that it ended up with Florence's Mum, the Baroness, perhaps with the idea of using it as a lever to free Flo, (well, that didn't work did it?). I think it is also possible that it was her who may have torn out the missing page/s because the dialogue leading up to the start of the book leads you to believe that James had seen them being intimate, or at least leaving him in no doubt as to the stage their affair is at. This might look bad for Florence and perhaps even score a home goal. James states in the Diary that he will leave it to be found; "I place this now in a place where it shall be found." If one of the brothers found it they would destroy it I'm sure as its content would detroy them and the whole family for generations. Florence was told by James what he had done, he may have also told her that he wrote a Journal. Perhaps she, or one of the staff picked it up and got it out of the house? All possibles, but also all possibly wrong!!

[RavenDarkendale]

Re Ravendarkendale's list.
The only answer possible is 1. The reasons being that the Diary accuses Maybrick of murder and cannibalism, but then it changes and tries to dig itself out of that dark hole. Reversing the hatred on (Bunny) Florence, Lowry, Jews. He even feels bad about running down his flash brother Michael. What would be the point of pretending Maybrick is the monster and then try to illicit sympathy? So for me very unlikely frame up. Point 7, you answer yourself, too many people have to be involved and keep the secret.

I put that forward as a possibility, as Freud said: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." I.E., sometimes something has no hidden meaning and is simply what it appears to be. I do like to cover all possibilities.

However, if Maybrick wrote the diary, wanting people to know what he had done, why he had done it, and wishing people to remember that he was once "a gentle man", why was the diary hidden for so many years?

How hard would it have been for him to leave instructions to publish the diary after he had passed on. I can see hiding it while he was alive, if true, it was a one-way ticket to the gallows. But after he was gone, they could do nothing to him.

Just a thought

[Stephen Thomas]

In my first edition hardcover of Stephen Knight's
Final Solution, published in 1976, Kelly's picture
is in it, with the initials on the wall. For some
reason, the picture was reversed with Kelly's
head to the left and the initials read MF, but
the letters are there nevertheless. And that's about
15 years before the diary ever saw the light of
day.

Hello Livia

Well my first edition of the Knight book which I actually bought in 1976 has the Kelly photo extremely unreversed. Perhaps you are holding the book upside down or maybe have the Australian first edition.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jason and Phil,

In my first edition hardcover of Stephen Knight's
Final Solution, published in 1976, Kelly's picture
is in it, with the initials on the wall. For some
reason, the picture was reversed with Kelly's
head to the left and the initials read MF, but
the letters are there nevertheless. And that's about
15 years before the diary ever saw the light of
day.

Regards to you all,

Liv

Hello Liv,

And we all know about that story, and it's inventions. MF. Mary F.......?

Have a good weekend Liv

best wishes

Phil

[miakaal4]

Re Ravendarkendale's list.
The only answer possible is 1. The reasons being that the Diary accuses Maybrick of murder and cannibalism, but then it changes and tries to dig itself out of that dark hole. Reversing the hatred on (Bunny) Florence, Lowry, Jews. He even feels bad about running down his flash brother Michael. What would be the point of pretending Maybrick is the monster and then try to illicit sympathy? So for me very unlikely frame up. Point 7, you answer yourself, too many people have to be involved and keep the secret.

[Livia]

Hello Tempus,

Yeah, I got all that the first time you posted it,
but you still haven't addressed why the need for
a more subtle set of initials when the FM is on the
wall. Further, you're assuming that the FM in
question is Florence Maybrick, when a witness,
Fanny Mortimer, made a statement to the police
on October 1, just after the Stride murder which
was published in the papers of the day.

Hello Jason and Phil,

In my first edition hardcover of Stephen Knight's
Final Solution, published in 1976, Kelly's picture
is in it, with the initials on the wall. For some
reason, the picture was reversed with Kelly's
head to the left and the initials read MF, but
the letters are there nevertheless. And that's about
15 years before the diary ever saw the light of
day.

Regards to you all,

Liv

[RavenDarkendale]

@Tempus

I've been unable to post for awhile (laptop stolen in Augusta, GA) but I never saw your response to this:

If your mind is really open, consider these scenarios:

List of possible scenarios:

1) The Diary is genuine, written by James Maybrick who was the Ripper
2) The Diary was written by James Maybrick, who angry with his wife flaunting her affair, fantasizes about the Ripper
3) The Diary was written by the Ripper, and Maybrick has nothing to do with it, JtR learning about the Maybrick mess through gossip
4) The Diary was faked by a contemporary who knew Maybrick was the Ripper
5) The Diary was faked by Florence's lover, hoping to implicate Maybrick
6) The Diary was faked sometime between 1888 and 1921 just for the hell of it
7) The Diary is a modern fake that was so well done it confounds even the experts
8) And speaking of point 7, we would have to add bullet points for every person involved who might have faked the Diary

It being real or faked has thus layers of truth or deception. I stand by my own statement that nothing is impossible to fake given time, resources, and skill. I believe it could be faked, and lean towards point 6

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

[Phil Carter]

it is definitely clearer in the diary example than any other.....so i think its fair to say that it may have been "touched up"......

Hello Jason,

And if the print was "touched up"... what does that tell us about the originality of the Diary? The intention with both being.....?

Fairly obvious imho.

best wishes

Phil