The Diary

[caz]

The obscure poem that Barratt had in his loft.

Just a quickie here - there is no evidence that Mike Barrett ever had that obscure poem in his house until at least two years after taking the diary to London. All the evidence indicates that he tracked it down in 1994 to one of the modern sources in Liverpool library and later bought himself a copy in a second-hand bookshop, which he handed over to the private investigator he had recently engaged to help him prove how he had forged the diary (??! alarm bells anyone? ). So don't be fooled by the modern theorists who have been conned by Mike into believing he had the poem all along and plopped a couple of lines - badly - into the diary for good measure. It didn't happen.

Incidentally, the poem was also available, I believe, in the 1860s or 70s, from a Liverpool bookshop close to the real Maybrick family home, and the poet's father was once the vicar at the white chapel that gave Whitechapel London its name. You couldn't make it up and somehow I doubt that Mike could have known any of this.

The whole story is an awful lot more complicated than that, so I can quite understand why some posters would sooner bang on about their absolute faith in the diary being a modern fake, than to read the diary itself more carefully or to delve beneath the comfort zone surface and examine the events and people surrounding its emergence.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The provenance, authorship and its existence as a primary source is not in question in regard to the marginalia. It was clearly written by a senior police official, it has remained in the possession of the family, been verified by experts, and is inextricably linked to the wwritings of a senior colleague.

Hmmmm, Phil. Where have you been? None of this should be 'in question' today, but for the longest time all these aspects were very much questioned in certain quarters, and even by some with excellent reputations in the field.

I don't think anyone need fret too much that the diary (or watch) will one day stop being questionable and therefore questioned, but that's how it should be in a case like this. It's not wrong or intellectually bankrupt to carry on questioning and seeking answers about its true origins, just because some have no interest in the subject, or think they know all the answers already, without bothering to look further than their nose.

To be honest, though with respect, a claim that the "diary" is older than 1930 is almost laughable, given that its only relevance is if it pre-dates Maybrick's death. If he did not write it then it has little value as what it claims to be. An old forgery remains a forgery.

How do you know 'what it claims to be'? It certainly doesn't claim to be in the real Maybrick's known handwriting. So until you know who wrote it and when, you will only be guessing that it was a serious claim by its author to be a genuine ripper confession by the real Maybrick. Why could it not have been the handwritten draft of a piece of fiction bringing two infamous cases together - someone's funny little literary exercise perhaps - never meant for publication, let alone to be taken seriously? It's not even technically a forgery, is it, unless you are suggesting it's a very poor copy of an original piece of work by Maybrick himself.

I agree that Maybrick's genuine ties to the area don't 'make the case against him stronger', but this is changing the goal posts. You claimed (wrongly) that he had no such ties. Why did you do that, if you were not arguing that this made the case weaker?

I have rarely actually entered the debate about the contents of the diary - recently only to point out that the references to graffitoi in MJK's room appear to be based on the famous photo of her body. I find that worrying and puzzling.

I find it worrying and puzzling that you continue to debate 'references to graffiti in MJK's room' which don't even appear in the diary! If you cannot pinpoint any such references, because they don't exist, how can they 'appear to be based on the famous photo'? It's probably just as well that you rarely enter the debate about the contents of the diary, having read it only once and not having much of a clue what it contains and what it doesn't.

My main and only contention here is about the use of the diary in wider discussions about the Ripper. Treating it as if a solid source at present simply makes us all look like credulous fools. There are academic standards which we should all follow, and nothing is worthwhile or will be sustainable unless we do.

But you have been using the diary (or rather misusing it) to claim that the MJK photo has been used by a ripper hoaxer in modern times. To me, that fits right in with any wider discussions about the ripper case generally. I agree there are academic standards that should be followed, and that includes getting the basic facts right before you start pontificating. What was worthwhile or sustainable about seeing stuff in the diary that isn't there, or claiming that Maybrick had no ties to the Whitechapel area?

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

Well said.

G

[Phil H]

But you have been using the diary (or rather misusing it) to claim that the MJK photo has been used by a ripper hoaxer in modern times.

Seems clear to me.

To me, that fits right in with any wider discussions about the ripper case generally. I agree there are academic standards that should be followed, and that includes getting the basic facts right before you start pontificating.

The facts being?

What was worthwhile or sustainable about seeing stuff in the diary that isn't there, or claiming that Maybrick had no ties to the Whitechapel area?

What a confused sentence!!

What have I seen in the diary that wasn't there?
Please give me chapter and verse on Maybrick's ties to Whitechapel. I'll consider them - probably rather as I will Fisherman's Lechmere theory!

Phil H

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

J

Incidentally, the poem was also available, I believe, in the 1860s or 70s, from a Liverpool bookshop close to the real Maybrick family home, and the poet's father was once the vicar at the white chapel that gave Whitechapel London its name. You couldn't make it up and somehow I doubt that Mike could have known any of this.

(Excerpt from York)

Ah, Richard Crashaw the Metaphysical poet from the 17th century....a lotta of jawing over the years about a certain poem. And a certain line in a certain Diary.....

Oh costly intercourse of death

whereas it should read, as all we Crashaw specialists should know:

O Costly intercourse, of deaths

Here are some interesting Crashaw factoids...his father was the Vicar of Whitechapel; his wife was buried there as well. Her monument was placed in Whitechapel Church. And he died "not without grave suspicion of having been poisoned".

I will just say that one, he was far better known in Victorian times than the modern era. And two, the Liverpool publishing house G Philips and Son published in 1862 an edition of Crashaw's poems.

Sir Jim could have just strolled down the road from his office and bought a copy after he read the issue of The Times Thursday December 25th 1884 containing a review of a work by Weatherby (Michael's Librettist) and an article about Crashaw on the same page. Right next to each other!

Another one of those Diary moments that make you scratch your head.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Please give me chapter and verse on Maybrick's ties to Whitechapel. I'll consider them - probably rather as I will Fisherman's Lechmere theory!

From an earlier post, which you responded to....hopefully having read it lol.

Lechmere? Dem fightin' words!!!!

I will add to what I originally wrote this - In 1871 Maybrick went into business with Gustavus A. Witt, Commissioning Agent, in Knowsley Buildings, Tithebarn Street, Liverpool. Witt, by 1888, was running a London office in a tiny street called Cullum Street, which was about 400 yards from Mitre Square. Witt testified in an affidavit that Maybrick did his firm's London business.

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.

[caz]

Seems clear to me.

Good. Then with your admirable academic standards, you should be able to quote directly from the diary, to support your claim that its author needed the MJK photo in order to write what he/she wrote. [Cue: 'I only read it the once and that was a waste of time' or 'I don't have to prove anything'.] You make a claim, sunshine, any claim, and you are stuck with supporting it, backing down with good grace or looking foolish. Do your 'standards' only apply to everyone else?

The facts being?

The facts being a) there are no references in the diary to 'graffiti' in MJK's room and you have failed to produce a quote that demonstrates otherwise; and b) the real James had known ties to the Whitechapel area.

I can't help it if you can't or won't read what's been put right in front of you, for all to see.

What a confused sentence!!

The sentence in plain English that confused you was:

'What was worthwhile or sustainable about seeing stuff in the diary that isn't there, or claiming that Maybrick had no ties to the Whitechapel area?'

You wanted the rest of us to adhere to what is 'worthwhile' and 'sustainable', yet your own claims about the diary content and the real James Maybrick would appear to be unsustainable and ultimately worthless.

I am only confused by your double standards.

Love,

Caz
X

[RavenDarkendale]

The facts being a) there are no references in the diary to 'graffiti' in MJK's room and you have failed to produce a quote that demonstrates otherwise; and b) the real James had known ties to the Whitechapel area.

Love,

Caz
X

HI Caz

The author does say he left a clue but they'll never find it. Tempus ties that to "an initial here and an initial there will tell of the whoring mother." This was Florence Maybrick, FM.

Personally, even though I pointed out an M formation to Tempus, I think in such a horrible picture one can see what one hopes to see, as the eye focuses on familiar patterns.

Cheers

Darkendale

[miakaal4]

Hey Caz, Thanks for the info re the POEM, with an additional nod to the others who had imput. This Maybrick saga is incredible isn't it? For every turn there is another exit. It is like entering a maze, and somehow never getting to a dead end, that diary is still going strong.
If one considers Maybricks motivation and planning, then add the ties to Whitechapel, it becomes very easy to imagine the scenes that would follow...a screenplay in the offing there!
Before even deciding to kill, he may have had some experience of the London whores which turned him against them.
His wife then refuses him sex. He beats her, and according to the diary, he promises; "I will take the bitch tonight" which sounds like rape to me. He has begun his 'fall'.
A point for consideration, I had wondered why, a man who knows the danger of being caught literally red-handed, would use a knife and not be satisfied with the strangling of the victim. However, once again the diary could answer that question, (if indeed it is a question), because the author bemoans the lack of pleasure in the killing of the first woman in Manchester who he just strangles. He then goes on to promise himself that he will use acid to make the whore suffer more.
Presumably, he then continues to think and plan. His need not to be caught always whispering in one ear, while the killer whispers in the other. Acid will cause screams of pain: No good. Guns bang, and poison is too slow, or again would cause screaming. So, he buys a nice sharp knife. Upon using it for the first time, he experiences pleasure exceeding his hopes, thinking back on it renews his pleasure. The man has found his method!

[caz]

A point for consideration, I had wondered why, a man who knows the danger of being caught literally red-handed, would use a knife and not be satisfied with the strangling of the victim. However, once again the diary could answer that question, (if indeed it is a question), because the author bemoans the lack of pleasure in the killing of the first woman in Manchester who he just strangles. He then goes on to promise himself that he will use acid to make the whore suffer more.
Presumably, he then continues to think and plan. His need not to be caught always whispering in one ear, while the killer whispers in the other. Acid will cause screams of pain: No good. Guns bang, and poison is too slow, or again would cause screaming. So, he buys a nice sharp knife. Upon using it for the first time, he experiences pleasure exceeding his hopes, thinking back on it renews his pleasure. The man has found his method!

Hi miakaal,

If the diary were genuine, this would be exactly the kind of 'new' information we might expect to see. Yet we still hear the mantra from certain quarters: 'it contains no new information about the killer that we didn't already know'.

The problem is, it's almost bound to be info that only the real killer could have known or confirmed, in which case there is no way to distinguish it from the work of an inventive mind. It's catch 22, because any 'new' info that can't be verified can't be treated as evidence so may as well be fiction, while anything subsequently found in the historical record is not really 'new' info at all, and the argument will be that a modern hoaxer found it too.

Love,

Caz
X

[RavenDarkendale]

@ Caz

And doesn't that type of circular logic drive you crazy? The diary could be real. It could be fraudulent. But as you say, there's no way to distinguish reality from inventiveness. Because nothing can be proven, the circle goes on and on in an infinite loop. Hoo-boy!

God Bless

Darkendale

[caz]

Seeing Things

HI Caz

The author does say he left a clue but they'll never find it. Tempus ties that to "an initial here and an initial there will tell of the whoring mother." This was Florence Maybrick, FM.

Personally, even though I pointed out an M formation to Tempus, I think in such a horrible picture one can see what one hopes to see, as the eye focuses on familiar patterns.

Cheers

Darkendale

Thanks Raven. Yes, I know how Tempus interprets the diary's words and what he sees in the photo and how he fits it all together.

I was trying to ask Phil what he meant by 'graffiti' on MKJ's wall, because the diary doesn't mention any and the photo doesn't prove there was any intentional writing there, so it's all down to individual and subjective interpretation.

Phil evidently sees something in that photo which he claims a modern hoaxer also saw and chose to refer to in the diary as 'graffiti'. But he won't be drawn on what that something is, or where in the diary he saw this specific reference to 'graffiti in MJK's room'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Thanks Raven. Yes, I know how Tempus interprets the diary's words and what he sees in the photo and how he fits it all together.

Again, I am only showing you what the dairy writer says he has left. He says he has left something in the 'front' and he mentions initials. All you have to do - whether you believe it is initials that he has left or not - is find the 'front' and see exactly what he has left you. I have merely pointed out the deliberately placed items that form an FM and that occur in the FRONT. Remarkable coincidence again!

I was trying to ask Phil what he meant by 'graffiti' on MKJ's wall, because the diary doesn't mention any and the photo doesn't prove there was any intentional writing there, so it's all down to individual and subjective interpretation.

This is one of the things I have argued with Phil about before. He stated that the diary was forged around the MJK photo, but he failed to say which FM it was. Presumably he came to this conclusion some years ago, which means he must be basing it on the FM on the wall. So how does he explain the FM that I am showing that no one was talking about until I came on here. Is he saying that the forger spotted this as well. In which case he should be given more credit than is currently being given to him. Either way, as I keep saying, it still means that there are purposely placed items in that room that create an FM, so why are they there?

Phil evidently sees something in that photo which he claims a modern hoaxer also saw and chose to refer to in the diary as 'graffiti'. But he won't be drawn on what that something is, or where in the diary he saw this specific reference to 'graffiti in MJK's room'.

Love,

Caz
X

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Cogidubnus]

Again, I am only showing you what the dairy writer says he has left. He says he has left something in the 'front' and he mentions initials. All you have to do - whether you believe it is initials that he has left or not - is find the 'front' and see exactly what he has left you. I have merely pointed out the deliberately placed items that form an FM and that occur in the FRONT. Remarkable coincidence again!

Except Tempus, it's only the front with the benefit of hindsight as to where the photo's going to be taken from. How does the writer know that a picture's going to be taken from that angle? (Or at all for that matter?). The "front", visually, could equally refer to the first envisaged view viz from the doorway of No 13...or the view from the foot of the bed (in many ways the logical place to view the entire scene from)...unless you imagine he knew they'd remove the sash and take a picture from outside?

All the best

Dave

[RavenDarkendale]

@ Dave

Playing Devil's advocate [I seem to bne good at it] Despite my disagreement with Tempus, the diary does say in front. He couldn't know the picture would be taken, or the angle. As far as we know, this is the only picture taken with the body in situ. He was writing about how observers on the scene would view the body, that they would stand on that side of the body, which would make it the front. The F is there on her arm, no question. I find the M refereed to by Tempus to be subjective at best. But read his post and view his accompanying picture, and make up your own mind.

God bless

Darkendale