Tweet
It is almost twenty years now since the Maybrick diary was first published, and an entire realm of research, argument, debate, and misinformation has been constructed, deconstructured, analysed, and criticised; and yet still we approach the third decade of the puzzle with the only piece of evidence in the Jack the Ripper canon routinely marginalised.
The diary has been deemed a fake from its very get-go, and its detractors turn readily to that argument whenever circumstances require it. The most prominent first formal declaration of fakery was – instrumental for our cause here – also one of the weakest of the many similar claims which would follow. The Times newspaper – determined to make yet another outlandish claim about an historical figure’s purported ‘diary’ before anyone could advise them to hold their caution – published the announcement that the diary was a fake under a single banner headline consisting solely of that very word. Remarkably, the article which described the ‘fake’ did nothing of the sort – indeed, it provided some reasoned reinforcement for the possibility that the diary may very well be the authentic product. The Times had scored the hat-trick to end all hat-tricks in terms of acting in haste.
The Times just didn’t want to get it wrong again, so they got their rebuttal in before all of the other detractors could get there and made their reckless claim, presumably safe in the knowledge that no national institution of the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had ever previously opined so hopelessly so consistently and got it so stupendously wrong each time. They were so desperate to be seen to be able to get it right at last that they acted before the facts. And this effectively set the tone for the drama which has played-out over the last two decades. In order to be absolutely certain that they cannot be taken for fools, the very largest part of those who comment on this case take the safe route and assume with no discomfort whatsoever that the diary which emerged from the most implausible of provenances must be a confidence trick.
And so it immediately made it difficult for the diary’s case to be thoroughly considered. With such a welter of critics keen to point out apparent deficiencies, whilst claiming vociferously that there are no balancing insights or reasonable doubt around the claims of it being a hoax, few stepped forward to defend it; fewer still with no financial motivation underpinning it.
The error underpinning this urge to avoid being fooled is common enough in the business world. In the event that one of their subordinates ought to be graded a 3 on a scale of 1 to 5, managers will consider themselves more righteous for erroneously grading them a 1 or a 2 than they would a 4 or a 5 on the grounds that although both ratings are fundamentally wrong, those who scored lower were at least not fooled into a soft, higher score. And this error compounds itself when others see it in action. Observe a group of high-rating managers in the company of their low-rating peers, and you will soon see a gravitation of scores downwards in order to avoid behind-your-back accusations of weakness and incompetence. By such psychological means does underperformance become normalised in business in order to protect those who are genuinely incompetent managers.
The approach in business circles to the challenge of preventing incompetent managers from deliberately downgrading performance ratings to bolster the view that they know what they are doing is to introduce benchmarking: here, videos and role plays are used to help managers achieve a shared view of what 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 look like. By so doing, a manager can award a 5 by citing the evidence they have observed to back up such a rating, leaving the less competent, less observant manager to rate lower and for that lower rating to shine an uncomfortable light on their own performance as a deserved consequence. The tables get turned through agreeing what behaviours are being rated, and how these are to be rated.
Is it possible for the Maybrick diary to be so rated through benchmarking? If so, we might imagine a rating scale somewhat as follows:
0: This evidence is irrelevant to whether or not James Maybrick wrote the diary.
-3: This evidence strongly points to the diary not being written by James Maybrick.
-2: This evidence points to the diary not being written by James Maybrick.
-1: This evidence weakly points to the diary not being written by James Maybrick.
1: This evidence weakly points to the diary being written by James Maybrick.
2: This evidence points to the diary being written by James Maybrick.
3: This evidence strongly points to the diary being written by James Maybrick.
The Evidence
For the purpose of this present exercise, I am adopting the position that if James Maybrick wrote the diary then he was indeed Jack the Ripper. Others may argue that he wrote the diary but did not actually commit the crimes.
I am also adopting the position that if a particular fact cited in the diary was wholly obscure (but backed-up by evidence) that this also points towards James Maybrick being the author of the diary and therefore (following the principle above) Jack the Ripper. Others may argue that however obscure the facts, these could have been researched (e.g., Maybrick’s parents sharing a grave) or indeed experienced (e.g., the 1889 Grand National being the fastest for 18 years) by a hoaxer.
The document and the ink. Neither proven nor disproven to be possibly 1888-89 originals, but not relevant to the present task. The authenticity of the document and the ink from this period would tell us nothing about whether James Maybrick wrote the diary. Clearly, if they were proven categorically to be from a later age than 1889, that would prove the diary to have not been written by James Maybrick (it wouldn’t, however, prove that James Maybrick was not actually Jack the Ripper, but I think we would all take that as read under those circumstances). [0]
The torn out pages. The initial pages of the diary have been roughly torn out and this has given credence to the view that an unsophisticated hoaxer acquired a genuine Victorian scrapbook and removed the used pages before creating the diary. The diary itself provides a differing view. It strongly suggests on three separate occasions that the diary originated in Maybrick’s place of work and was stored there by him:
• If Smith [George, a bookkeeper] should find this then I am done before my campaign begins.
• If I could have killed the bastard Lowry [Thomas, a clerk] with my bare hands there and then I would have done so. How dare he question me on any matter, it is I that should question him. Damn him damn him damn him should I replace the missing items? No that would be too much of a risk. Should I destroy this?
• I am cold curse the bastard Lowry for making me rip.
If the diary is authentic then it was written primarily in James’ office and stored there, arguably not securely if there was a danger that George Smith might find it. Further, Lowry’s interventions suggest that the scrapbook Maybrick chose was a company one which he presumably believed would not be missed. Clearly – if the text is to be believed – it was indeed missed, causing Maybrick to have to remove the earliest pages and return them, presumably with an excuse regarding where the rest of the document had gone. Hence, the third comment cited above suggesting that Maybrick recognised the ambiguity of the reference to ripping and made a half-decent literary play with it. Ultimately, of course, the missing pages have the look of a weakness in the diary’s case and should be rated accordingly, although others may argue that their absence tells us nothing about whether or not James Maybrick wrote the diary. That view is fair and could easily cause a zero rating as a consequence. [-1]
The provenance. The diary came to light in genuinely surreal circumstances and those circumstances contrived to become more rather than less bizarre as time past. For all that these comedic circumstances appear to imply that the diary could not possibly be authentically written by James Maybrick and simultaneously appear 100 years later in such a way, the fact remains that however incredible the provenance, this does not in itself tell us anything about whether or not James Maybrick wrote the diary. One may make the argument that it points in the direction of a fraud, but this would be fundamentally incorrect – such a position is one merely of opinion rather than reasoned argument. I think many would disagree with this view, and I’m so close to agreeing that I could easily be persuaded to rate this somewhere between 1 and 3 but for now am taking the absolutist view that as utterly strange as the diary’s appearance was it wasn’t in itself an indication that James Maybrick did not write it. [0]
The handwriting. This has been covered so frequently that it barely needs a mention again. The handwriting in the diary – written by a man apparently addicted to arsenic and in the midst of a killing spree, and written for his own benefit - looks nothing like the formal copperplate style James Maybrick appears to have adopted in his Will, and in – for example – the letter form the SS Baltic. Given the nature of the different circumstances in which the Maybrick handwriting evidence was constructed (always formal), this no more than weakly points to the diary having not been written by James Maybrick. [-1]
The watch. The Maybrick watch is often underrated as evidence for Maybrick’s guilt. One obvious reason for this is that it came to light in the same city at the same time that the diary came to light. It probably isn’t that surprising that if the Ripper was from Liverpool that these two articles would eventually show up in Liverpool, however the timing of the two events is extremely disconcerting other than that they scratches in the watch would have been largely meaningless without the context provided the diary so one may well have prompted the awareness of the other. Seven sets of initials are provided representing the five canonical victims and two more in Manchester book-ending the five. If the two Manchester sets of initials could ever be associated with known murders of prostitutes in that city in 1888, this would be extremely powerful evidence in support of the diary and the watch having once been James Maybrick’s. At present, the watch no more than weakly points to the diary having been written by James Maybrick. [1]
I took refreshment at the Poste House ... This has been an apparent anachronism and known to most commentators for many years. Ordinarily a significant problem for the authenticity of the diary, but one adequately explained by writer Caroline Morris on this Casebook. [-1]
As usual my hands are cold ... It has been argued many times that the author has a clear understanding of the effects of long-term arsenic abuse. It has also been argued that these effects are not well understood even in medical circles, thereby suggesting strongly that the author of the diary was writing about what they were experiencing. James Maybrick was known (on record, at Florence’s trial) to use arsenic as a stimulant. [2]
My dearest Gladys is unwell yet again … It is clearly the case that in Victorian England, infant mortality was horrendous. It is not necessarily the case across the board, however. Children from wealthy backgrounds would be as well-nourished as almost all western children have the opportunity to be today, and therefore the chances of Gladys or Bobo being amongst the ranks of unhealthy children in the general population would be relatively low. Gladys was regularly ill, as strongly suggested by the Aunspaugh letter. The author of the diary also has her as regular ill. This is not as trivial or insignificant detail as some may previously have thought or argued. [2]
Indeed only the other day did not Edwin say of me I was the most gentlest of men he had encountered … Currently, this counts as an irrelevant comment regarding Edwin’s view of James, but if it were ever to be the case that documented evidence of Edwin saying this of James were ever to surface, and it could be proved beyond reasoanble doubt that that was genuine, this could provide a significant detail in support of the author being James Maybrick. [0]
I have taken a small room in Middlesex Street … On another thread, I have cited the work of Kim Rossmo, a renowned geographical profiler, whose analysis of the known Ripper sites identified two principle loci for the Ripper’s lair: Flower & Dean Street followed by Middlesex Street. Rossmo’s analysis only looked at murder sites and therefore excluded the Ripper’s presence in Goulston Street which – if included – would quite possibly have tipped the balance in favour of Middlesex Street (it’s right next to it). [1]
I hope he [Edwin Maybrick] is enjoying the fruits of America. Written just after the Polly Nichols murder, if Edwin Maybrick could be shown to have been in America in early September 1888, this would lend huge credence to the diary being authentic. [0]
A farthing, one and two … Recently, I read Phillip Sugden’s The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. The title lacked a certain honesty by the time of my version (2006) as the diary had been available for thirteen years, and Sugden managed to dismiss its importance in just three pages – clearly no ‘complete’ history at all - citing evidence which he later failed to support. For example, Sugden states that The diarist repeats, for example, the myth that the murderer left two farthings with the body of Annie Chapman. Sugden later demonstrates that of the four witnesses to Chapman’s body in Hanbury Street, none make any reference to farthings being left near the body and he draws the inference that there were therefore no farthings at all. One hundred and fifty pages later, however, Sugden cites Major Henry Smith, Acting Commissioner of the City of London Police in 1888, who states of a suspect “… he spent all of his time with women of loose character, whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns, two of these farthings having been found in the pocket of the murdered woman [Chapman]”. Clearly, then, the four witnesses had not seen farthings at Annie Chapman’s feet. They hadn’t seen them at her feet because they were in her pocket. Sugden does not dispute this despite having cited the lack of farthings as evidence that the diary is a hoax. Crucially, the author of the diary does not state that the farthings were found at Chapman’s feet or anywhere near her body. This example does not weaken nor further the case for authenticity, but it does serve as a timely reminder of quite how quickly so-called serious researchers are prepared to discount the one piece of solid evidence this case presently has. [0]
It shall come, if Michael can succeed in rhyming verse then I can do better .... This was for a very long time cited as one of the principle tenets of the case against the diary being authentic: how could James Maybrick have misunderstood that his famous brother Michael only wrote the music not the lyrics to his most famous pieces? A writer by the name of Livia on this Casebook recently put an end to that argument when she demonstrated that Michael Maybrick did indeed compose his own music and write his own accompanying lyrics. Previously, this would have rated a 1, but now rates a 5 as it has moved from contradicting authenticity to providing excellent support for it. [2]
Before I am finished all of England will know the name I have given myself. This extract from the diary has also caused numerous challenges for those who make the case for James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper. It has become common parlance now to assume that the Sept 25 ‘Dear Boss’ letter was written by ‘an enterprising journalist’ to keep the interest in the Ripper high. It has also been pointed out (though it hardly seems surprising given what the writer was claiming) that the ‘Dear Boss’ letter is not in the same hand as the diary. Either way, the argument shifts heavily back in favour of the diary with the recent emergence of the Sept 17 letter. If this letter is authentic, then it was the first to introduce the term ‘Jack the Ripper’ into the case, and this letter very firmly does match the writing in the diary – in many cases beyond reasonable doubt. This might suggest that James gave himself the name – perhaps taking the first two and last two letters of his name to form ‘Jack’ – and signed it in the Sept 17 letter to Central News. It may well have been that letter – possibly misplaced by the time it reached the police – which the ‘enterprising journalist’ thought to copy for his or her Sept 25 ‘Dear Boss’ version. Certainly, the ‘Dear Boss’ letter and the ‘Saucy Jacky’ postcard mirror the Sept 17 letter closely. Of course, it is said that the Sept 17 letter is also a hoax, but for now the diary claims authorship of the name and the Sept 17 letter supports this. [2]
I visited my mother and fathers grave. Maybrick’s parents were buried in the same grave, and this fact is on record only – to my knowledge – in an obscure reference buried deep in the transcripts of Florence’s trial. The author of the diary clearly knows that Maybrick’s parents shared a grave, and this would be a remarkable detail for any hoaxer to have uncovered. [3]
… left my mark … Catharine Eddowes’ cheeks had inverted ‘V’ shapes cut into them which – if combined – form a very plausible letter ‘M’. These marks do not appear to have been much remarked upon prior to the publication of the diary and they cannot be ignored as evidence in favour of James Maybrick having written it. [2]
Very well, if they are to insist that I am a Jew then a Jew I shall be … I wonder if they enjoyed my funny Jewish joke? The ‘juwes’ of the Goulston Street graffito could quite easily be read as ‘james’, and backs up the diary author’s references to ‘a Jew I shall be’. The Goulston Street graffito has never been better explained for any other suspect or in any other theory. [3]
… tin match box empty … Along with the issue of the handwriting, the almost perfect copy of the reference to the empty tin match box amongst Eddowes’ meagre possessions represents a major stumbling block for those who believe the diary to be the work of Jack the Ripper. It appears to be lifted straight out of the official list which was first published in the late 1980s. Along with the Sept 17 letter being discovered in 1988, the ‘tin match box empty’ reference emerges at a time when most diary sceptics assume the diary was started to be created or thought about. [-3]
Cigarette case. Amongst Eddowes’ meagre possessions was a red leather cigarette case which prior to the diary being published was not – to my knowledge - questioned. The author of the diary makes the very clear argument that the cigarette case was his and that he had evidently dropped it during the murder. Subsequent to the publication of the diary, commentators have started to question how likely it would be that on that fateful day Eddowes’ would not pawn such an apparently valuable item and instead chose to pawn a pair of boots to earn the price of a cup of tea. To date, the cigarette case simply makes us think differently about the list of Eddowes’ possessions and proves nothing either way regarding Maybrick’s likely candidature for Jack the Ripper, but it is interesting to note that the mere possibility that the case belonged to the killer had not taken ground until the diary author suggested it. Diary critics frequently state that the diary adds nothing to our knowledge of the case, and the cigarette case may be one example of where this simply is not true. Sugden states Like most charlatans, its author gives little substantive information to check. The diary actually provides numerous details which can be checked; unfortunately, this series of murders has been picked-over in such detail over the intervening years that little appears to be unknown, and where that is true of researchers it is evidently also necessarily true of hoaxers. The claim that the cigarette case was the murderer’s is a new piece of information (to my knowledge), but it can’t be checked because of the passage of time. An associate of James Maybrick stated that she had seen him keep white powder in a cigarette case. If the case found in Eddowes’ possession is still available for ‘checking’, it may well turn out to be the case that traces of arsenic can still be found within it. If this were ever the case, it would literally be case closed, but for now it is no more than a tantalising possibility which the diary has brought to light. [0]
Left them on the table with some of the other stuff. It has been stated many times that the diary’s misplacing of Mary Kelly’s breasts proves that the diary is a fake. It is undoubtedly not helpful to the diarist’s cause that he gets this detail wrong, but it is unreasonable to state that this mistake is anything other than an error of recall and detail rather than a revelation of the diary writer’s ignorance of the case. Amongst the carnage of Kelly’s room, it is possibly even inevitable that certain details would be confused in the recall, especially if reinforced by incorrect newspaper reports at the time. [-2]
I had the key, and with it I did flee … The diary writer claims that he took Kelly’s room key away with him. Sugden states that this is not true. Unfortunately, when subsequently reviewing the Kelly murder, he makes no further comment about the key. As I understand it, the missing key had been found again before the murder, and that it was discovered again after the murder outside of the room itself. If this is not true, then the claim of the diary writer that he took the room key away with him makes the case for the authenticity of the diary much weaker, but until that fact is established, it must remain an irrelevant detail. [0]
A handkerchief red, led to the bed … This is a hugely important aspect of the dairy as it unequivocally states that whoever George Hutchinson saw leading Mark Kelly to her room on that fateful morning was the person who wrote the diary, and by implication James Maybrick. The diarist is evidently very confident that Hutchinson’s statement would not or could not ruin the hoax. Hutchinson stated that the killer had a dark, ‘foreign’ appearance. If Maybrick had spent long periods in the States, he may have acquired an enduring tan to his face, though the reference to ‘foreign’ appearance seems otherwise implausible for a Liverpudlian. Strangely, Hutchinson subsequently states that the killer had a pale complexion which seems to contradict his earlier reference to the dark, ‘foreign’ appearance. Overall, the killer appears to have been very respectably dressed, certainly sufficiently so to have been Maybrick. Hutchinson stated that the killer appeared to be 34 or 35 years old when Maybrick was almost 50. This may have been a miscalculation based upon the sort of ageing a 35 year old would have experienced in the world George Hutchinson lived in. In sum, Hutchinson’s testimony is in the main part consistent with Maybrick’s appearance and should be treated as evidence in favour of Maybrick. [2]
An initial here and an initial there will tell of the whoring mother. One of the most controversial aspects of the diary – and its biggest single piece of new information on it – is the reference to the initials ‘FM’ somewhere in Mary Kelly’s room. The diary writer states Left it in front for all eyes to see. These very letters have been identified by numerous commentators, and denied by as many more. First identified in 1988 (that year again) by Simon Wood when they didn’t have any consequences, it is somewhat symptomatic of the extremes the diary inspires when the same commentator could not see them again when they very much did have consequences. The two letters are very firmly on Mary Kelly’s wall, and the ‘M’ even displays the distinctive rising second half which is demonstrated throughout the diary itself. These letters appear clearly in most versions of the photograph, including in Sugden’s own ‘Complete History’. Every other detail surrounding the diary becomes irrelevant if those letters are actually on the wall as so many claim, which is presumably why they appear to be so hard to see by all those who declare the diary to be a hoax, including the commentator who first brought them to our attention in 1988. [3]
Christmas is approaching and Thomas has invited me to visit him. The fact that Maybrick spent Christmas 1888 with his brother Thomas in Manchester was not well-publicised at the trial of Florence Maybrick, and it isn’t clear where the diary writer could have come by such an insight. Although there is no unequivocal proof that he was with Thomas, Florence’s mother did write after the trial that Maybrick had left Florence alone for the first time at Christmas 1888. [2]
Oh costly intercourse of death. This quotation comes from about as obscure an English poet as it is possible to get, and in a pre-internet age, it was finally identified by Michael Barrett, the man who had first brought the diary to the world’s attention. Worse still, it came from an obscure book of poetry which Barrett had in his attic. Not in itself so damaging that the entire case for the diary collapses, but certainly one of the most unlikely of dual coincidences (that Barrett should not only find the source of the quotation but should also have the book it came from). [-3]
… true the race was the fastest I have ever seen … The 1889 Grand National was the fastest race since The Lamb won in 9 minutes 35.75 seconds in 1871 which itself was the fastest since The Huntsman won in 9 minutes 30 seconds in 1862. If Maybrick routinely attended the race, he would have seen only one faster in the previous 27 years (assuming that he attended the 1871 race at all). I uncovered this information using Wikipedia in less than a minute in 2012, but in the pre-internet age this information would not have been readily available. The diary writer demonstrates astonish insight into a most unlikely fact, and this must support the view that the diary is authentic and that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. [3]
… his Royal Highness was but a few feet away from yours truly … The Prince of Wales attended the 1889 Grand National. Even Wikipedia and Google cannot provide that information so quite how the diary writer did so in the pre-internet age must make us consider the possibility that this was possible because the diary writer himself was there on March 29, 1889. [3]
My dear Bunny knows all. The diary writer states on his final page that he has told Florence of his crimes (one assumes). She subsequently writes to her lover – Alfred Brierley – saying The tale he told me was a pure fabrication, and only intended to frighten the truth out of me. Whilst this statement is certainly open to multiple interpretations, it is certainly supportive of the possibility that Maybrick had indeed informed Florence of his crimes. It could equally have been the work of a hoaxer who saw the opportunity to link the two ‘events’ together (Florence’s actual letter, and Maybrick’s supposed authorship of the diary). [0]
Diego Laurenz. In October 1888, the Liverpool Echo received a postcard from someone claiming to be ‘Jack the Ripper GENUINE’ [sic]. As an apparent signal of their earnestness, the writer added ‘Diego Laurenz’ at the end. It has been argued that the Liverpool Echo is a very provincial newspaper for someone to send a Jack the Ripper communication to, that ‘Diego’ is the Spanish version of ‘James’, and that ‘Laurenz’ represents a passable rhyme for ‘Florence’. It is perfectly plausible that James Maybrick would have read the Liverpool Echo, and this postcard represents the strongest non-diary evidence for James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper. [2]
Michael Barrett's confession, retraction, confession, and retraction. Sadly, the diary came to light (it would appear) because of one man and one woman's urge to help him find value in his life. That man - I'm sure by his own admission - was not exactly well-placed for the role Fate had chosen for him, and the rest is firmly history. If you take his various confessions seriously, then you have to do the same with his various retractions. [0]
The exercise above provides very little science and a great deal of estimation, but if one takes all of the scores (apart from the zeros), removes a 1 for every -1 (or a -1 for every 1 depending upon which there are more of), a 2 for every -2 (or a -2 for every 2), and a 3 for every -3 (or a -3 for every 3), and then averages out the remainder, the final rating for James Maybrick as the diary author and therefore – under our premises of earlier – Jack the Ripper is a straight 2. This piece of statistical gymnastics suggests that the evidence points to James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper, unless you add to or subtract from the evidence as presented here, or simply change the ratings.
In the continued absence of one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary, we are therefore inevitably left with an unshakeable feeling that the Maybrick diary is absolutely not a fake.
The diary has been deemed a fake from its very get-go, and its detractors turn readily to that argument whenever circumstances require it. The most prominent first formal declaration of fakery was – instrumental for our cause here – also one of the weakest of the many similar claims which would follow. The Times newspaper – determined to make yet another outlandish claim about an historical figure’s purported ‘diary’ before anyone could advise them to hold their caution – published the announcement that the diary was a fake under a single banner headline consisting solely of that very word. Remarkably, the article which described the ‘fake’ did nothing of the sort – indeed, it provided some reasoned reinforcement for the possibility that the diary may very well be the authentic product. The Times had scored the hat-trick to end all hat-tricks in terms of acting in haste.
The Times just didn’t want to get it wrong again, so they got their rebuttal in before all of the other detractors could get there and made their reckless claim, presumably safe in the knowledge that no national institution of the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had ever previously opined so hopelessly so consistently and got it so stupendously wrong each time. They were so desperate to be seen to be able to get it right at last that they acted before the facts. And this effectively set the tone for the drama which has played-out over the last two decades. In order to be absolutely certain that they cannot be taken for fools, the very largest part of those who comment on this case take the safe route and assume with no discomfort whatsoever that the diary which emerged from the most implausible of provenances must be a confidence trick.
And so it immediately made it difficult for the diary’s case to be thoroughly considered. With such a welter of critics keen to point out apparent deficiencies, whilst claiming vociferously that there are no balancing insights or reasonable doubt around the claims of it being a hoax, few stepped forward to defend it; fewer still with no financial motivation underpinning it.
The error underpinning this urge to avoid being fooled is common enough in the business world. In the event that one of their subordinates ought to be graded a 3 on a scale of 1 to 5, managers will consider themselves more righteous for erroneously grading them a 1 or a 2 than they would a 4 or a 5 on the grounds that although both ratings are fundamentally wrong, those who scored lower were at least not fooled into a soft, higher score. And this error compounds itself when others see it in action. Observe a group of high-rating managers in the company of their low-rating peers, and you will soon see a gravitation of scores downwards in order to avoid behind-your-back accusations of weakness and incompetence. By such psychological means does underperformance become normalised in business in order to protect those who are genuinely incompetent managers.
The approach in business circles to the challenge of preventing incompetent managers from deliberately downgrading performance ratings to bolster the view that they know what they are doing is to introduce benchmarking: here, videos and role plays are used to help managers achieve a shared view of what 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 look like. By so doing, a manager can award a 5 by citing the evidence they have observed to back up such a rating, leaving the less competent, less observant manager to rate lower and for that lower rating to shine an uncomfortable light on their own performance as a deserved consequence. The tables get turned through agreeing what behaviours are being rated, and how these are to be rated.
Is it possible for the Maybrick diary to be so rated through benchmarking? If so, we might imagine a rating scale somewhat as follows:
0: This evidence is irrelevant to whether or not James Maybrick wrote the diary.
-3: This evidence strongly points to the diary not being written by James Maybrick.
-2: This evidence points to the diary not being written by James Maybrick.
-1: This evidence weakly points to the diary not being written by James Maybrick.
1: This evidence weakly points to the diary being written by James Maybrick.
2: This evidence points to the diary being written by James Maybrick.
3: This evidence strongly points to the diary being written by James Maybrick.
The Evidence
For the purpose of this present exercise, I am adopting the position that if James Maybrick wrote the diary then he was indeed Jack the Ripper. Others may argue that he wrote the diary but did not actually commit the crimes.
I am also adopting the position that if a particular fact cited in the diary was wholly obscure (but backed-up by evidence) that this also points towards James Maybrick being the author of the diary and therefore (following the principle above) Jack the Ripper. Others may argue that however obscure the facts, these could have been researched (e.g., Maybrick’s parents sharing a grave) or indeed experienced (e.g., the 1889 Grand National being the fastest for 18 years) by a hoaxer.
The document and the ink. Neither proven nor disproven to be possibly 1888-89 originals, but not relevant to the present task. The authenticity of the document and the ink from this period would tell us nothing about whether James Maybrick wrote the diary. Clearly, if they were proven categorically to be from a later age than 1889, that would prove the diary to have not been written by James Maybrick (it wouldn’t, however, prove that James Maybrick was not actually Jack the Ripper, but I think we would all take that as read under those circumstances). [0]
The torn out pages. The initial pages of the diary have been roughly torn out and this has given credence to the view that an unsophisticated hoaxer acquired a genuine Victorian scrapbook and removed the used pages before creating the diary. The diary itself provides a differing view. It strongly suggests on three separate occasions that the diary originated in Maybrick’s place of work and was stored there by him:
• If Smith [George, a bookkeeper] should find this then I am done before my campaign begins.
• If I could have killed the bastard Lowry [Thomas, a clerk] with my bare hands there and then I would have done so. How dare he question me on any matter, it is I that should question him. Damn him damn him damn him should I replace the missing items? No that would be too much of a risk. Should I destroy this?
• I am cold curse the bastard Lowry for making me rip.
If the diary is authentic then it was written primarily in James’ office and stored there, arguably not securely if there was a danger that George Smith might find it. Further, Lowry’s interventions suggest that the scrapbook Maybrick chose was a company one which he presumably believed would not be missed. Clearly – if the text is to be believed – it was indeed missed, causing Maybrick to have to remove the earliest pages and return them, presumably with an excuse regarding where the rest of the document had gone. Hence, the third comment cited above suggesting that Maybrick recognised the ambiguity of the reference to ripping and made a half-decent literary play with it. Ultimately, of course, the missing pages have the look of a weakness in the diary’s case and should be rated accordingly, although others may argue that their absence tells us nothing about whether or not James Maybrick wrote the diary. That view is fair and could easily cause a zero rating as a consequence. [-1]
The provenance. The diary came to light in genuinely surreal circumstances and those circumstances contrived to become more rather than less bizarre as time past. For all that these comedic circumstances appear to imply that the diary could not possibly be authentically written by James Maybrick and simultaneously appear 100 years later in such a way, the fact remains that however incredible the provenance, this does not in itself tell us anything about whether or not James Maybrick wrote the diary. One may make the argument that it points in the direction of a fraud, but this would be fundamentally incorrect – such a position is one merely of opinion rather than reasoned argument. I think many would disagree with this view, and I’m so close to agreeing that I could easily be persuaded to rate this somewhere between 1 and 3 but for now am taking the absolutist view that as utterly strange as the diary’s appearance was it wasn’t in itself an indication that James Maybrick did not write it. [0]
The handwriting. This has been covered so frequently that it barely needs a mention again. The handwriting in the diary – written by a man apparently addicted to arsenic and in the midst of a killing spree, and written for his own benefit - looks nothing like the formal copperplate style James Maybrick appears to have adopted in his Will, and in – for example – the letter form the SS Baltic. Given the nature of the different circumstances in which the Maybrick handwriting evidence was constructed (always formal), this no more than weakly points to the diary having not been written by James Maybrick. [-1]
The watch. The Maybrick watch is often underrated as evidence for Maybrick’s guilt. One obvious reason for this is that it came to light in the same city at the same time that the diary came to light. It probably isn’t that surprising that if the Ripper was from Liverpool that these two articles would eventually show up in Liverpool, however the timing of the two events is extremely disconcerting other than that they scratches in the watch would have been largely meaningless without the context provided the diary so one may well have prompted the awareness of the other. Seven sets of initials are provided representing the five canonical victims and two more in Manchester book-ending the five. If the two Manchester sets of initials could ever be associated with known murders of prostitutes in that city in 1888, this would be extremely powerful evidence in support of the diary and the watch having once been James Maybrick’s. At present, the watch no more than weakly points to the diary having been written by James Maybrick. [1]
I took refreshment at the Poste House ... This has been an apparent anachronism and known to most commentators for many years. Ordinarily a significant problem for the authenticity of the diary, but one adequately explained by writer Caroline Morris on this Casebook. [-1]
As usual my hands are cold ... It has been argued many times that the author has a clear understanding of the effects of long-term arsenic abuse. It has also been argued that these effects are not well understood even in medical circles, thereby suggesting strongly that the author of the diary was writing about what they were experiencing. James Maybrick was known (on record, at Florence’s trial) to use arsenic as a stimulant. [2]
My dearest Gladys is unwell yet again … It is clearly the case that in Victorian England, infant mortality was horrendous. It is not necessarily the case across the board, however. Children from wealthy backgrounds would be as well-nourished as almost all western children have the opportunity to be today, and therefore the chances of Gladys or Bobo being amongst the ranks of unhealthy children in the general population would be relatively low. Gladys was regularly ill, as strongly suggested by the Aunspaugh letter. The author of the diary also has her as regular ill. This is not as trivial or insignificant detail as some may previously have thought or argued. [2]
Indeed only the other day did not Edwin say of me I was the most gentlest of men he had encountered … Currently, this counts as an irrelevant comment regarding Edwin’s view of James, but if it were ever to be the case that documented evidence of Edwin saying this of James were ever to surface, and it could be proved beyond reasoanble doubt that that was genuine, this could provide a significant detail in support of the author being James Maybrick. [0]
I have taken a small room in Middlesex Street … On another thread, I have cited the work of Kim Rossmo, a renowned geographical profiler, whose analysis of the known Ripper sites identified two principle loci for the Ripper’s lair: Flower & Dean Street followed by Middlesex Street. Rossmo’s analysis only looked at murder sites and therefore excluded the Ripper’s presence in Goulston Street which – if included – would quite possibly have tipped the balance in favour of Middlesex Street (it’s right next to it). [1]
I hope he [Edwin Maybrick] is enjoying the fruits of America. Written just after the Polly Nichols murder, if Edwin Maybrick could be shown to have been in America in early September 1888, this would lend huge credence to the diary being authentic. [0]
A farthing, one and two … Recently, I read Phillip Sugden’s The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. The title lacked a certain honesty by the time of my version (2006) as the diary had been available for thirteen years, and Sugden managed to dismiss its importance in just three pages – clearly no ‘complete’ history at all - citing evidence which he later failed to support. For example, Sugden states that The diarist repeats, for example, the myth that the murderer left two farthings with the body of Annie Chapman. Sugden later demonstrates that of the four witnesses to Chapman’s body in Hanbury Street, none make any reference to farthings being left near the body and he draws the inference that there were therefore no farthings at all. One hundred and fifty pages later, however, Sugden cites Major Henry Smith, Acting Commissioner of the City of London Police in 1888, who states of a suspect “… he spent all of his time with women of loose character, whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns, two of these farthings having been found in the pocket of the murdered woman [Chapman]”. Clearly, then, the four witnesses had not seen farthings at Annie Chapman’s feet. They hadn’t seen them at her feet because they were in her pocket. Sugden does not dispute this despite having cited the lack of farthings as evidence that the diary is a hoax. Crucially, the author of the diary does not state that the farthings were found at Chapman’s feet or anywhere near her body. This example does not weaken nor further the case for authenticity, but it does serve as a timely reminder of quite how quickly so-called serious researchers are prepared to discount the one piece of solid evidence this case presently has. [0]
It shall come, if Michael can succeed in rhyming verse then I can do better .... This was for a very long time cited as one of the principle tenets of the case against the diary being authentic: how could James Maybrick have misunderstood that his famous brother Michael only wrote the music not the lyrics to his most famous pieces? A writer by the name of Livia on this Casebook recently put an end to that argument when she demonstrated that Michael Maybrick did indeed compose his own music and write his own accompanying lyrics. Previously, this would have rated a 1, but now rates a 5 as it has moved from contradicting authenticity to providing excellent support for it. [2]
Before I am finished all of England will know the name I have given myself. This extract from the diary has also caused numerous challenges for those who make the case for James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper. It has become common parlance now to assume that the Sept 25 ‘Dear Boss’ letter was written by ‘an enterprising journalist’ to keep the interest in the Ripper high. It has also been pointed out (though it hardly seems surprising given what the writer was claiming) that the ‘Dear Boss’ letter is not in the same hand as the diary. Either way, the argument shifts heavily back in favour of the diary with the recent emergence of the Sept 17 letter. If this letter is authentic, then it was the first to introduce the term ‘Jack the Ripper’ into the case, and this letter very firmly does match the writing in the diary – in many cases beyond reasonable doubt. This might suggest that James gave himself the name – perhaps taking the first two and last two letters of his name to form ‘Jack’ – and signed it in the Sept 17 letter to Central News. It may well have been that letter – possibly misplaced by the time it reached the police – which the ‘enterprising journalist’ thought to copy for his or her Sept 25 ‘Dear Boss’ version. Certainly, the ‘Dear Boss’ letter and the ‘Saucy Jacky’ postcard mirror the Sept 17 letter closely. Of course, it is said that the Sept 17 letter is also a hoax, but for now the diary claims authorship of the name and the Sept 17 letter supports this. [2]
I visited my mother and fathers grave. Maybrick’s parents were buried in the same grave, and this fact is on record only – to my knowledge – in an obscure reference buried deep in the transcripts of Florence’s trial. The author of the diary clearly knows that Maybrick’s parents shared a grave, and this would be a remarkable detail for any hoaxer to have uncovered. [3]
… left my mark … Catharine Eddowes’ cheeks had inverted ‘V’ shapes cut into them which – if combined – form a very plausible letter ‘M’. These marks do not appear to have been much remarked upon prior to the publication of the diary and they cannot be ignored as evidence in favour of James Maybrick having written it. [2]
Very well, if they are to insist that I am a Jew then a Jew I shall be … I wonder if they enjoyed my funny Jewish joke? The ‘juwes’ of the Goulston Street graffito could quite easily be read as ‘james’, and backs up the diary author’s references to ‘a Jew I shall be’. The Goulston Street graffito has never been better explained for any other suspect or in any other theory. [3]
… tin match box empty … Along with the issue of the handwriting, the almost perfect copy of the reference to the empty tin match box amongst Eddowes’ meagre possessions represents a major stumbling block for those who believe the diary to be the work of Jack the Ripper. It appears to be lifted straight out of the official list which was first published in the late 1980s. Along with the Sept 17 letter being discovered in 1988, the ‘tin match box empty’ reference emerges at a time when most diary sceptics assume the diary was started to be created or thought about. [-3]
Cigarette case. Amongst Eddowes’ meagre possessions was a red leather cigarette case which prior to the diary being published was not – to my knowledge - questioned. The author of the diary makes the very clear argument that the cigarette case was his and that he had evidently dropped it during the murder. Subsequent to the publication of the diary, commentators have started to question how likely it would be that on that fateful day Eddowes’ would not pawn such an apparently valuable item and instead chose to pawn a pair of boots to earn the price of a cup of tea. To date, the cigarette case simply makes us think differently about the list of Eddowes’ possessions and proves nothing either way regarding Maybrick’s likely candidature for Jack the Ripper, but it is interesting to note that the mere possibility that the case belonged to the killer had not taken ground until the diary author suggested it. Diary critics frequently state that the diary adds nothing to our knowledge of the case, and the cigarette case may be one example of where this simply is not true. Sugden states Like most charlatans, its author gives little substantive information to check. The diary actually provides numerous details which can be checked; unfortunately, this series of murders has been picked-over in such detail over the intervening years that little appears to be unknown, and where that is true of researchers it is evidently also necessarily true of hoaxers. The claim that the cigarette case was the murderer’s is a new piece of information (to my knowledge), but it can’t be checked because of the passage of time. An associate of James Maybrick stated that she had seen him keep white powder in a cigarette case. If the case found in Eddowes’ possession is still available for ‘checking’, it may well turn out to be the case that traces of arsenic can still be found within it. If this were ever the case, it would literally be case closed, but for now it is no more than a tantalising possibility which the diary has brought to light. [0]
Left them on the table with some of the other stuff. It has been stated many times that the diary’s misplacing of Mary Kelly’s breasts proves that the diary is a fake. It is undoubtedly not helpful to the diarist’s cause that he gets this detail wrong, but it is unreasonable to state that this mistake is anything other than an error of recall and detail rather than a revelation of the diary writer’s ignorance of the case. Amongst the carnage of Kelly’s room, it is possibly even inevitable that certain details would be confused in the recall, especially if reinforced by incorrect newspaper reports at the time. [-2]
I had the key, and with it I did flee … The diary writer claims that he took Kelly’s room key away with him. Sugden states that this is not true. Unfortunately, when subsequently reviewing the Kelly murder, he makes no further comment about the key. As I understand it, the missing key had been found again before the murder, and that it was discovered again after the murder outside of the room itself. If this is not true, then the claim of the diary writer that he took the room key away with him makes the case for the authenticity of the diary much weaker, but until that fact is established, it must remain an irrelevant detail. [0]
A handkerchief red, led to the bed … This is a hugely important aspect of the dairy as it unequivocally states that whoever George Hutchinson saw leading Mark Kelly to her room on that fateful morning was the person who wrote the diary, and by implication James Maybrick. The diarist is evidently very confident that Hutchinson’s statement would not or could not ruin the hoax. Hutchinson stated that the killer had a dark, ‘foreign’ appearance. If Maybrick had spent long periods in the States, he may have acquired an enduring tan to his face, though the reference to ‘foreign’ appearance seems otherwise implausible for a Liverpudlian. Strangely, Hutchinson subsequently states that the killer had a pale complexion which seems to contradict his earlier reference to the dark, ‘foreign’ appearance. Overall, the killer appears to have been very respectably dressed, certainly sufficiently so to have been Maybrick. Hutchinson stated that the killer appeared to be 34 or 35 years old when Maybrick was almost 50. This may have been a miscalculation based upon the sort of ageing a 35 year old would have experienced in the world George Hutchinson lived in. In sum, Hutchinson’s testimony is in the main part consistent with Maybrick’s appearance and should be treated as evidence in favour of Maybrick. [2]
An initial here and an initial there will tell of the whoring mother. One of the most controversial aspects of the diary – and its biggest single piece of new information on it – is the reference to the initials ‘FM’ somewhere in Mary Kelly’s room. The diary writer states Left it in front for all eyes to see. These very letters have been identified by numerous commentators, and denied by as many more. First identified in 1988 (that year again) by Simon Wood when they didn’t have any consequences, it is somewhat symptomatic of the extremes the diary inspires when the same commentator could not see them again when they very much did have consequences. The two letters are very firmly on Mary Kelly’s wall, and the ‘M’ even displays the distinctive rising second half which is demonstrated throughout the diary itself. These letters appear clearly in most versions of the photograph, including in Sugden’s own ‘Complete History’. Every other detail surrounding the diary becomes irrelevant if those letters are actually on the wall as so many claim, which is presumably why they appear to be so hard to see by all those who declare the diary to be a hoax, including the commentator who first brought them to our attention in 1988. [3]
Christmas is approaching and Thomas has invited me to visit him. The fact that Maybrick spent Christmas 1888 with his brother Thomas in Manchester was not well-publicised at the trial of Florence Maybrick, and it isn’t clear where the diary writer could have come by such an insight. Although there is no unequivocal proof that he was with Thomas, Florence’s mother did write after the trial that Maybrick had left Florence alone for the first time at Christmas 1888. [2]
Oh costly intercourse of death. This quotation comes from about as obscure an English poet as it is possible to get, and in a pre-internet age, it was finally identified by Michael Barrett, the man who had first brought the diary to the world’s attention. Worse still, it came from an obscure book of poetry which Barrett had in his attic. Not in itself so damaging that the entire case for the diary collapses, but certainly one of the most unlikely of dual coincidences (that Barrett should not only find the source of the quotation but should also have the book it came from). [-3]
… true the race was the fastest I have ever seen … The 1889 Grand National was the fastest race since The Lamb won in 9 minutes 35.75 seconds in 1871 which itself was the fastest since The Huntsman won in 9 minutes 30 seconds in 1862. If Maybrick routinely attended the race, he would have seen only one faster in the previous 27 years (assuming that he attended the 1871 race at all). I uncovered this information using Wikipedia in less than a minute in 2012, but in the pre-internet age this information would not have been readily available. The diary writer demonstrates astonish insight into a most unlikely fact, and this must support the view that the diary is authentic and that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. [3]
… his Royal Highness was but a few feet away from yours truly … The Prince of Wales attended the 1889 Grand National. Even Wikipedia and Google cannot provide that information so quite how the diary writer did so in the pre-internet age must make us consider the possibility that this was possible because the diary writer himself was there on March 29, 1889. [3]
My dear Bunny knows all. The diary writer states on his final page that he has told Florence of his crimes (one assumes). She subsequently writes to her lover – Alfred Brierley – saying The tale he told me was a pure fabrication, and only intended to frighten the truth out of me. Whilst this statement is certainly open to multiple interpretations, it is certainly supportive of the possibility that Maybrick had indeed informed Florence of his crimes. It could equally have been the work of a hoaxer who saw the opportunity to link the two ‘events’ together (Florence’s actual letter, and Maybrick’s supposed authorship of the diary). [0]
Diego Laurenz. In October 1888, the Liverpool Echo received a postcard from someone claiming to be ‘Jack the Ripper GENUINE’ [sic]. As an apparent signal of their earnestness, the writer added ‘Diego Laurenz’ at the end. It has been argued that the Liverpool Echo is a very provincial newspaper for someone to send a Jack the Ripper communication to, that ‘Diego’ is the Spanish version of ‘James’, and that ‘Laurenz’ represents a passable rhyme for ‘Florence’. It is perfectly plausible that James Maybrick would have read the Liverpool Echo, and this postcard represents the strongest non-diary evidence for James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper. [2]
Michael Barrett's confession, retraction, confession, and retraction. Sadly, the diary came to light (it would appear) because of one man and one woman's urge to help him find value in his life. That man - I'm sure by his own admission - was not exactly well-placed for the role Fate had chosen for him, and the rest is firmly history. If you take his various confessions seriously, then you have to do the same with his various retractions. [0]
The exercise above provides very little science and a great deal of estimation, but if one takes all of the scores (apart from the zeros), removes a 1 for every -1 (or a -1 for every 1 depending upon which there are more of), a 2 for every -2 (or a -2 for every 2), and a 3 for every -3 (or a -3 for every 3), and then averages out the remainder, the final rating for James Maybrick as the diary author and therefore – under our premises of earlier – Jack the Ripper is a straight 2. This piece of statistical gymnastics suggests that the evidence points to James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper, unless you add to or subtract from the evidence as presented here, or simply change the ratings.
In the continued absence of one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary, we are therefore inevitably left with an unshakeable feeling that the Maybrick diary is absolutely not a fake.
Comment