The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Eliza]

Like I said earlier, I’m no historian, just someone who has a degree in English Lit from a pretty good school. In the course of my studies, and during spare time, I read a lot of Victorian and Edwardian literature—classics, early detective novels, journalism, even “penny dreadfuls.” Based on this experience and other thoughts, I opt for the “new hoax” theory.

First, for those who advocate for an old hoax—what was the purpose? Was the phony “Maybrick Journal” intended to be a scary piece of fiction incorporating the Ripper murders—ala “The Lodger” by Belloc Lowndes? If so, it doesn’t fit any known suspense novel prototype from that time. Anyone who’s read Lowndes, or other minor 19^th crime/detective writers, would notice the slow pace, fusty prose, sentimentality, and careful restraint regarding the gory aspects of the crimes. The raw, harsh, and comparatively gruesome qualities of the Maybrick document is in stark contrast. Again, it’s like no other work of crime fiction from that era. While it does contain some fairly convincing Victorian-esque prose, the overall presentation is extremely modern.

If it were not intended as fiction—then again, what was the purpose? To frame Maybrick? Why? Or to make a quick buck by positing a new Ripper suspect? Then why was it never offered to the public?

At any rate, I suspect any old hoax of this type—whether offered as fiction or non fiction--would have seemed too harsh and over the top for any publisher to touch, given the sensibilities of the time. A hoaxer clever enough to invent this narrative, would be clever enough to put it in form that would be acceptable for that era’s readership.

I think the hoax is new, but as I stated in my earlier post on the subject, may have incorporated a few recently discovered Maybrick letters or journal entries

[Kattrup]

New hoax, no doubt. I’m confounded that anyone would believe otherwise.

[Sam Flynn]

New hoax, without question.

[Wickerman]

If it were not intended as fiction—then again, what was the purpose? To frame Maybrick? Why? Or to make a quick buck by positing a new Ripper suspect? Then why was it never offered to the public?

A hoax is often just to create a stir, and to see how gullible people can be, but because things went off the rails pretty quick doesn't mean it wasn't a hoax.

I'm sure it was a new Hoax, never doubted it.

[John G]

Almost certainly a new hoax.

[The Baron]

There is NOTHING in Ripperology more certain than that it is a modern hoax!



The Baron

[Graham]

New hoax, without any doubt at all. Written by a modern and not too well-educated English-speaker who was trying to 'sound Victorian'. Having said this, our good friend Ike will now once more produce a zillion reasons why he believes it was written by J Maybrick.

Graham

[Spider]

Neither, no doubt. I’m confounded that anyone would believe otherwise.

[Iconoclast]

Eliza,

I'm just going to target this at you as you were the one who started this idiotically presumptuous thread.

Please reply to this post and clarify for us all how many Maybrick-related publications you have read - and by 'read', I mean more or less fully digested every idea, nuance, physical evidence, and circumstantial evidence.

Please list them by name (and please put in parentheses how many times you have read each one). I'm guessing this will be the quickest thing you do all day so I don't think it's going to be a lot to ask.

If the Victorian scrapbook is a hoax then it is absolutely unequivocally, incontrovertibly, etc., a modern hoax, written post-1987 and the publication of Fido's most referenced work. There is absolutely no room within the evidence for any other reasonable alternative. None. The only alternative is hoax-at-the-time and there wasn't a person alive - with the possible exception of Michael Maybrick who had absolutely no reason to create a piece of work which could potentially ruin his extremely profitable career and his high standing in London society - who could have written it given its internal content. I don't need to clarify what that internal content is, of course, because of the long list of books you've read on the subject and which you are going to clarify for us in your reply to this.

If the Victorian scrapbook is a hoax, it is a modern hoax. But here's the news, Eliza - it has not been shown to be a hoax. On the contrary, it continues to be the proof we have all craved for the identity of Jack the Ripper. If Society's Pillar is not on your list, I strongly recommend you put it there. If you read it and you remain so certain that the scrapbook and watch are part of a grand hoax which has still not been proven after 27 long years, then you're too hardcore for me. If, on the other hand, you read it and come back to us and say "My apologies - I should have asked 'If the Maybrick diary was a hoax ...'".

It is precisely this sort of lazy acceptance of the safe, convenient angle that caused me to write Pillar in the first place.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

If so, it doesn’t fit any known suspense novel prototype from that time. Anyone who’s read Lowndes, or other minor 19^th crime/detective writers, would notice the slow pace, fusty prose, sentimentality, and careful restraint regarding the gory aspects of the crimes. The raw, harsh, and comparatively gruesome qualities of the Maybrick document is in stark contrast. Again, it’s like no other work of crime fiction from that era. While it does contain some fairly convincing Victorian-esque prose, the overall presentation is extremely modern.

You clearly haven't considered another possibility why this may be the case, Eliza. I can think of one.

[Iconoclast]

By the way, everyone, I'm absolutely raging about this thread ...

[Iconoclast]

New hoax, without any doubt at all. Written by a modern and not too well-educated English-speaker who was trying to 'sound Victorian'. Having said this, our good friend Ike will now once more produce a zillion reasons why he believes it was written by J Maybrick.

Graham

I think 'friend' is too strong a term, Graham - we haven't forgotten the banners and the taunts from 2009 (I'll bet the paint is still on your fingers), and handing us down your useless loser has really not helped my mood. Give us six points this coming season, and we can move back into the acquaintancezone for now ...

[Iconoclast]

Neither, no doubt. I’m confounded that anyone would believe otherwise.

Thank the good Lord for the voice of reason ...

[Harry D]

Mr Orsam already showed the anachronistic usage of 'one-off' points to a modern hoax. There's no nineteenth century record of anyone using 'one-off' in the context it was used in the diary. In other words, to believe in the diary you have to accept that Maybrick was the originator of this expression, and it was not the slip-up of a modern hoaxer. Classic case of faith vs reason.

[Abby Normal]

Like I said earlier, I’m no historian, just someone who has a degree in English Lit from a pretty good school. In the course of my studies, and during spare time, I read a lot of Victorian and Edwardian literature—classics, early detective novels, journalism, even “penny dreadfuls.” Based on this experience and other thoughts, I opt for the “new hoax” theory.

First, for those who advocate for an old hoax—what was the purpose? Was the phony “Maybrick Journal” intended to be a scary piece of fiction incorporating the Ripper murders—ala “The Lodger” by Belloc Lowndes? If so, it doesn’t fit any known suspense novel prototype from that time. Anyone who’s read Lowndes, or other minor 19^th crime/detective writers, would notice the slow pace, fusty prose, sentimentality, and careful restraint regarding the gory aspects of the crimes. The raw, harsh, and comparatively gruesome qualities of the Maybrick document is in stark contrast. Again, it’s like no other work of crime fiction from that era. While it does contain some fairly convincing Victorian-esque prose, the overall presentation is extremely modern.

If it were not intended as fiction—then again, what was the purpose? To frame Maybrick? Why? Or to make a quick buck by positing a new Ripper suspect? Then why was it never offered to the public?

At any rate, I suspect any old hoax of this type—whether offered as fiction or non fiction--would have seemed too harsh and over the top for any publisher to touch, given the sensibilities of the time. A hoaxer clever enough to invent this narrative, would be clever enough to put it in form that would be acceptable for that era’s readership.

I think the hoax is new, but as I stated in my earlier post on the subject, may have incorporated a few recently discovered Maybrick letters or journal entries

lets cut through it-forget calling it a new hoax-lets call it for what it is. Barretts hoax.

labeling it new hoax will only open the door for the desperate diary defenders to open the possibility that its a new hoax but not by barret. LOL.
anything to keep the diary nonsense alive.