Maybrick and the diary.

[BookEmDano]

With all the arguments about the diary and its authenticity, I was wondering if anyone can make a compelling case for Maybrick being the Ripper?

If the diary (regardless of its' status) has never found, would Maybrick still be amongst the favourites?

[Mike Covell]

James Maybrick was a cotton merchant and allegedly a victim of his wife, who was tried for his death, but later released.

The idea that he was the ripper stemmed from the discovery of the diary and he was not a suspect prior to its discovery.

The watch may not have been noticed, were it not for the discovery of the diary.

[Omlor]

"Noticed."

Interesting choice of verb.

--John

[Mrsperfect]

No Way Jose!

Well, let me put it this way:

What are the odds of a 'murderer' being a murder victim?

Regards,

Eileen

[Graham]

Mrs Maybrick was sentenced to death for the murder of James, but reprieved because the Home Secretary advised that there was insufficient evidence that she had actually murdered James. By rights, according to many legal opinions at the time, she should have been released and acquitted there and then, as the murder of her husband was the only crime she was charged with. Unfortunately for her, she had also by her own admission committed adultery, so she was to a large extent a victim of the morals of the time, and as a result she spent 15 years in prison, essentially for nothing. Her mother was tireless in her attempts to get Florie released, appealing even to Queen Victoria, but to no avail. Her case was instrumental in the setting-up of the Court of Criminal Appeal. In a later age she could doubtless have claimed vast compensation for what was, in effect, wrongful imprisonment.

Regarding any evidence (prior to the Diary) of Maybrick as Jack the Ripper, Paul Feldman muddied the waters by claiming that James 'confessed' to Florie that he was the Ripper, although there is as far as I can see absolutely no evidence that he did.

Cheers,

Graham

[Dan Norder]

The watch may not have been noticed, were it not for the discovery of the diary.

It's more likely that the watch wouldn't have had the nonsense scratched into it if it weren't for the diary.

[Graham]

It's more likely that the watch wouldn't have had the nonsense scratched into it if it weren't for the diary.

Dan,

Would you care to offer your opinion as to who might have been the Scratcher of The Nonsense on the watch?

Not trying to stir the s*it with this question - I really am interested in your opinion, if you have one, that is.

Cheers,

Graham

[Dan Norder]

Much like with the diary itself, I'm not sure who was the exact person or persons involved. There are some rather obvious candidates to choose from, and coming to the the conclusion that they are both fraudulent doesn't depend upon first determining who was responsible.

[Graham]

Much like with the diary itself, I'm not sure who was the exact person or persons involved. There are some rather obvious candidates to choose from, and coming to the the conclusion that they are both fraudulent doesn't depend upon first determining who was responsible.

Hmmm, interesting. I note that your 'rather obvious candidates' boil down to just two people, as in your choice of the word 'both'.

The thing about the Watch is that there are no obvious anachronisms to consider, that it appeared to have been innocently purchased by a person who I really do consider to be above suspicion, and that as full a scientific analysis of it as is possible seems to suggest that the marks are not modern. I also sense that those anti-Diarists who post to these boards are slightly less ready to discuss the Watch than the Diary. I should add that I do not consider the Diary to be anything other than a forgery, nor do I consider James Maybrick to have been Jack the Ripper.

Could this be a chicken-and-egg situation, I wonder?

Thanks for your comments.

Graham

[Dan Norder]

By both I just meant the diary and watch, not two candidates for hoaxing the watch.

[Graham]

By both I just meant the diary and watch, not two candidates for hoaxing the watch.

Ah, OK, Dan. I'm with you now.

Cheers,

Graham

[Omlor]

Written recently here about the watch:

as full a scientific analysis of it as is possible seems to suggest that the marks are not modern.

This is not true. And it's not true in two different ways.

First, the most comprehensive professional report on the watch said explicitly that further analysis was not only possible but necessary before any definitive conclusions could be offered concerning the artifact. The watch was not made available to experts for the full amount of time that it would take to do all the required tests to reach such a point. More than a full decade later, to no one's surprise I'm sure, the watch has still not undergone "as full a scientific analysis of it as is possible."

Second, no expert testified that the marks in the watch "are not modern."

--John

[Victoria]

Instant karma's gonna get you

Well, let me put it this way:

What are the odds of a 'murderer' being a murder victim?

Regards,

Eileen

Hi Eileen,

I think the odds are good ... Instant Karma ...

On saying that though I also don't believe James
Maybrick was jtr.

Victoria

[Limehouse]

Hmmm, interesting. I note that your 'rather obvious candidates' boil down to just two people, as in your choice of the word 'both'.

The thing about the Watch is that there are no obvious anachronisms to consider, that it appeared to have been innocently purchased by a person who I really do consider to be above suspicion, and that as full a scientific analysis of it as is possible seems to suggest that the marks are not modern. I also sense that those anti-Diarists who post to these boards are slightly less ready to discuss the Watch than the Diary. I should add that I do not consider the Diary to be anything other than a forgery, nor do I consider James Maybrick to have been Jack the Ripper.

Could this be a chicken-and-egg situation, I wonder?

Thanks for your comments.

Graham

Graham,

You make a very good point about the watch. Like you, I don't believe the diary is genuine and I don't think Maybrick was the Ripper. But as you say, in some ways the watch is much harder to discount than the diary.

However, both the diary and the watch rely on a traditional canonical-five reading of the Ripper and his crimes. The diary in particular seems to contain all the evidence that someone looking for the Ripper would look for (such as the mention of items found on a victim that were not widely-known about). To me, it seems so contrived. It's style seems to be attempting to emulate some of the Ripper letters and its references smack of an author who is attempting to pull together elements of evidence in order to make a case. Thinking about the watch in relation to the diary, it seems to offer the perfect closure to wrap up the case. A personal item with the initials of the 'victims' scrawled inside.

I wonder, if the diary and watch had emerged fifty years ago, would more people be willing to believe it genuine?

[Graham]

Hi Limehouse.

Thanks for your post. I think I was trying to play devil's advocate a bit with my post re: the watch.

You're right, of course - to accept the watch was genuine you have to accept the C5. Not to say that the C5 is impossible, but to replicate their initials on the watch indicates that either (a) the C5 as we know them have to be accepted or (b) whoever made the marks on the watch was using knowledge gained from whatever information was available at the time the marks were made. Personally, if it'd been me who'd marked the watch, I might have left out Liz Stride and perhaps added "A N Other". What about the murder that the 'Diary Maybrick' claims he committed in Manchester? I think I might have included that. But I didn't make the marks.

As I said in my earlier post, there are no anachronisms or historial fallacies in the watch, so that bangs the door well and truly shut on that avenue of approach. The analyses carried out on the watch suggest (and ONLY suggest) that the marks could be old, but there is a lot of ands, ifs and buts attached to these analyses.

Caz Morris has always insisted, and I believe her implicitly, that Albert Johnson's character is beyond reproach, but there is always the possibility - I repeat the word, possibility) that he was set up. I always felt (once I'd got round to accepting that the Diary was not the work of James Maybrick) that the emergence of the watch so soon after the Diary had, to say the least, a large dollop of serendipity about it. But here I'm beginning to get out of my depth - there are many, many people who know more than I about the emergence of the watch, so taking this into account, I'll say no more about it.

To me, after many, many re-readings, the one thing about the Diary is that it contains no new information - there is really nothing in it that we didn't already know. And the watch follows this pattern - it's the C5, period.

I can only add that someone, somewhere, knows the truth. I'm buggered if I do.

Cheers,

Graham