The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Iconoclast]

The passage comes directly after the reference to the Grand National and is an obvious (a little TOO obvious) reference ...

Could you clarify for us all how this passage could have been made LESS obvious (that is, which bits are too obviously flagged to be believable)?

[rjpalmer]

however, there's absolutely no reference to the argument or the beating he gave his wife later that evening.

Gareth:

"I was clever. George would be proud of me, told the bitch in my position I could not afford a scandal. I struck her several times an eye for an eye, ha ha too many interfering servants, damn the bitches."

The passage comes directly after the reference to the Grand National and is an obvious (a little TOO obvious) reference to the fight later that night, in which the "interfering servants" heard Maybrick scream "such a scandal will be all over town tomorrow." The maid had tried to intercede, etc. It's all in the standard books on the Maybrick case.

[Iconoclast]

https://www.amazon.com/Diary-Jack-Ripper-Chilling-Confessions-ebook/dp/B009RRZNZE/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=james+maybrick&qid=1564852440&s=gateway&sr=8-1

That is the one that I want to read, right?

I also read and enjoyed the book on the trial of Florence Maybrick "Did She Kill Him?

c.d.

P.S. As for the start of a relationship, my hopes weren't up real high to begin with so no problem.

Hi c.d.,

I'd recommend the following as the seminal works on the scrapbook:

The Diary of Jack the Ripper, Shirley Harrison, 1993, Smith Gryphon
Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter, Paul Feldman, 1998, Virgin
Jack the Ripper: The American Connection, Shirley Harrison, 2003, Blake Publishing Limited
Ripper Diary: The Inside Story, Seth Linder, Caroline Morris, & Keith Skinner, 2003, Sutton Publishing Limited
The Maybrick A to Z, Christopher Jones, 2008, Countyvise Limited
25 Years of the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The True Facts, Robert Smith, 2017, Mango Books.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Rootin' Tootin'

[Sam Flynn]

Oh Lord, I knew I would regret getting involved in this discussion. Now if Maybrick stated that he wrote the diary to impress Jodi Foster (I think the Americans will get that reference) then I would absolutely conclude that it is fake. However, I am not aware of millions of undercover grammar police that secretly listen and record every conversation (much like Santa's elves) and list first instances of expressions being used.

It's all about the probabilities of when a word/phrase (a) came into use; (b) started to spread; (c) became popular; and (d) - optional - if/when it mutated to mean something else (then repeat a-c for the mutated word/phrase). And not just ONE word/phrase, but three or four used by the same person in the same short document, the combined probability of which makes it even less likely that the Diary was written before the first half of the 20th Century.

However, I am not aware of millions of undercover grammar police that secretly listen and record every conversation (much like Santa's elves) and list first instances of expressions being used.

You don't need the grammar police, as the principle is perfectly simple and the logic is sound. Try it yourself by using Google Books to track down more recently popular words like "reboot", "viral" or "meme". And, speaking of viral and memes, bear in mind that new words/ideas spread far, far more quickly now than they did before the advent of radio in the last century, and can get popular with millions of people within a very short time.

[Sam Flynn]

Is this incident in the diary because if not its omission would seem a much stronger argument against it authenticity than the use of a few phrases?

The violent argument with Florrie isn't mentioned in the Diary, although it does suggest that Florie, her Whore Master (Brierley) and Maybrick being at the Grand National. I say "suggest", because the relevant passage is rather woolly - doesn't even say "Frequented the Grand National..." - however, there's absolutely no reference to the argument or the beating he gave his wife later that evening.

PS: The "few phrases" aren't primarily relevant to the Diary's authorship or authenticity, but they are relevant to when the Diary was written.

[c.d.]

My memory is not good on this but I seem to recall from the book "Did She Kill Him?" that Maybrick and Florence had a violent argument on the evening of the Grand National horse race in which she confronted him with her knowledge of his mistresses and he most likely told her that he was aware of her extra marital affair as well. He also hit her at this time.

Is this incident in the diary because if not its omission would seem a much stronger argument against it authenticity than the use of a few phrases?

c.d.

[c.d.]

This could be the start of a great relationship, c.d. (although there is a Mrs Iconoclast so don't get your hopes up too much).

Which book are you thinking of ordering from Amazon (I may want to get it too)?

Rootin' Tootin' Six-Gun Ike

https://www.amazon.com/Diary-Jack-Ripper-Chilling-Confessions-ebook/dp/B009RRZNZE/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=james+maybrick&qid=1564852440&s=gateway&sr=8-1

That is the one that I want to read, right?

I also read and enjoyed the book on the trial of Florence Maybrick "Did She Kill Him?

c.d.

P.S. As for the start of a relationship, my hopes weren't up real high to begin with so no problem.

[tanta07]

I suppose the diary being a hoax is the most likely answer; it is the simplest explanation, after all. However, if the diary was created by a hoaxer, I've had some nagging questions that I can't resolve:

- If you're going to pick a subject as your fake Ripper, why choose Maybrick? The innocuous Liverpool cotton merchant seems about as unlikely a Ripper suspect as you can come across. Why not choose a far sexier subject like Chapman or Druitt or Tumblety, or hell, just about ANYONE else?

- Once you've decided on framing up Maybrick for your fake Ripper, how on earth did they manage to place the Liverpool cotton merchant in London at the times when the real guy really was in London? It seems like the hoaxer would have had to know an awful lot about this innocuous fella who didn't actually live in London. Who would even have access to the comings and goings of Maybrick during the Autumn of Terror?

While the diary being a hoax is the simpler and more obvious solution, it becomes a lot less simple when you consider all of the homework that would have had to gone into it. It seems like a suspect with relatively little known about him, like a Kosminski, would have made a better subject, since you could have written just about anything about him and no one would be the wiser.

[Iconoclast]

And to Ike -- I am trying to keep an open mind on this so much so that I will probably order the book from amazon. You are right that I lean towards the diary being a fake. The provenance seems awfully shaky to me. But I try to call 'em as I see 'em and just don't buy the smoking gun argument.

c.d.

This could be the start of a great relationship, c.d. (although there is a Mrs Iconoclast so don't get your hopes up too much).

Which book are you thinking of ordering from Amazon (I may want to get it too)?

Rootin' Tootin' Six-Gun Ike

[c.d.]

Oh Lord, I knew I would regret getting involved in this discussion. Now if Maybrick stated that he wrote the diary to impress Jodi Foster (I think the Americans will get that reference) then I would absolutely conclude that it is fake. However, I am not aware of millions of undercover grammar police that secretly listen and record every conversation (much like Santa's elves) and list first instances of expressions being used. How many books, magazines and publications have been reviewed to reach a conclusion on this? And why does it have to be Maybrick that originated the phrase? He didn't live in a bubble but had an extensive social life and rubbed elbows with a lot of people in the cotton industry. Could he have simply picked it up from them? I have used expressions I got from my friends and vice versa so it needn't be the case that this was solely a Maybrick invention. If you want to argue that the scarcity of this expression casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the diary I have no problem with that. I just think the whole smoking gun conclusion is unwarranted.

And to Ike -- I am trying to keep an open mind on this so much so that I will probably order the book from amazon. You are right that I lean towards the diary being a fake. The provenance seems awfully shaky to me. But I try to call 'em as I see 'em and just don't buy the smoking gun argument.

c.d.

[Harry D]

"One-off standpoint" is unequivocally a 'position' (or 'event' or however you wish to describe it). You may argue that the 'standpoint' is regarding a "one-off" process, and I can see how that works, but it is also a juxtaposition of the process term "one-off" with an event term which is exactly what "one off instance" is. We are told that that wasn't possible in 1888 and yet it happened in 1904, regardless of how you interpret the intent of the author of it. Doesn't seem such a great leap of faith anymore when the gap shrinks so greatly down to about 15 or 16 years.

And that's even assuming that "one off instance" was intended as "one-off instance"!

But again, the context of the "one-off standpoint" was from a manufacturing/design point of view, and there's no proof they were referring to a "unique" event. Mr Orsam has already addressed all of this. It does nothing to validate the claim that "one off instance" was a nineteenth century term.

[Abby Normal]

Oh - just in case anyone was wondering who was confused here, it was Abby Normal.

A 'false dichotomy' is where you offer someone only two options, neither one of which may be the correct or appropriate one. They can be as mutually exclusive as you want, but they've got to at least include all of the possible options otherwise you're creating a limited-choice. When you only offer two such choices, they become a false dichotomy.

Turns out I am that smart after all - such a relief!

no because your apparently the second of the two options---deluded.

and since you apparently do believe the diary is authentic then i actually feel sorry for you.

but at least your not a troll.

[Iconoclast]

and im sure there is even more times when someone just thought of those phrases. good grief.

And - if they just thought of those phrases - does that not simply go to the argument that those phrases were possible to think? And - if they were possible to think - does that not go to the possibility that they were written down occasionally? Good grief.

[Iconoclast]

no Einstein its not-one is doing it on purpose but dosnt really believe what they are saying and the other truly believes but is wrong.
they are mutually exclusive.

for all your vain glorious back patting youre not really that smart are you?

Oh - just in case anyone was wondering who was confused here, it was Abby Normal.

A 'false dichotomy' is where you offer someone only two options, neither one of which may be the correct or appropriate one. They can be as mutually exclusive as you want, but they've got to at least include all of the possible options otherwise you're creating a limited-choice. When you only offer two such choices, they become a false dichotomy.

Turns out I am that smart after all - such a relief!

[Iconoclast]

no Einstein its not-one is doing it on purpose but dosnt really believe what they are saying and the other truly believes but is wrong.
they are mutually exclusive.

for all your vain glorious back patting youre not really that smart are you?

Gosh, I missed that one!

You know, I think you've cut right through to the core of the argument there and nailed me. I really am not that smart at all!