The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[PaulB]

On the basis of those phrases, from the 1950s onwards. Taking into consideration other aspects of the Diary (e.g. mention of empty tin matchboxes), no earlier than the late 1980s.

Ta. So, "tin match box, empty" provides you with the earliest date the "diary" could have been written. What reasons do people give in opposition to that?

[PaulB]

[/B]

Hi Paul,

I was wondering what you thought about David’s suggested 11 day timeline for the creation of the diary? It’s in his Pillar Of Sand article in Section E - Provenance.

I'll have to read it, Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, it was considered that the "diary" was created to help in Florence's trial, but the conclusion was that James being Jack the Ripper would have provided Florence with a motive for murdering him and that no matter how sympathetic people might be towards Florence for taking such an action, it would still have been murder and perhaps have resulted in her execution. I think Florence's lawyers wanted a "not guilty" verdict, not to provide mitigation for a "guilty" one.

Of course, that doesn't mean the "diary" could not have been produced for the purpose you suggest, but never used.

One of the problems that has always dogged "diary" is that people don't ask "when" the "diary" was created, but let the argument polarise into whether the "diary" is genuine or a modern fake, and it's a circular argu,emt that goes nowhere.

Hi Paul,

I was wondering what you thought about David’s suggested 11 day timeline for the creation of the diary? It’s in his Pillar Of Sand article in Section E - Provenance.

[Yabs]

Didn’t Maybrick take out a £2000 life insurance on himself on Oct 3rd, 1888?

It seems unlikely, that during the height of the murders, Maybrick was writing about murder and revenge with Florence as the focus, when in reality, he was making her the beneficiary to his life and failing to mention it in the diary.

[Sam Flynn]

What time frame would you be looking at?

On the basis of those phrases, from the 1950s onwards. Taking into consideration other aspects of the Diary (e.g. mention of empty tin matchboxes), no earlier than the late 1980s.

[Iconoclast]

What time frame would you be looking at?

Hi Paul,

If we are to use as reliable 'fact' the mere understanding and personal certainties of those who believe they know the derivation of the English language better than any (regardless of whether the proper evidence for it still exists) then we must exclude any authorship prior to the "latter half of the 20th century". Of course, we can immediately discard 36/50ths of that time as creating it before 1987 was not possible (I may as well be as categorical on this point as they would be on theirs though - like them - I don't entirely have unequivocation on my side).

This means the master-forger/researchers got to work no earlier than the point in 1987 when Fido's work was published and no later than the April (?) day in 1992 when Bongo took the hoax to London. So just five years. During that time there must have existed the 'usual suspects' to whom the police could have turned to break the case, but strangely Scotland Yard did not break the case so we can only conclude that the existing known master-forgers/researchers did not grass up the Maybrick hoaxers or else were them but resisted Scotland Yard's experienced interrogations. We should conclude from this that the Maybrick forgers were working on their first masterpiece.

Worryingly, that leaves us with a first-time forgery focused on about the least likely candidate possible. No real doubt that the end result would be lucky to last 27 days before being revealed for what it was, the 'shoddy' hoax we were all assured it was by impartial experts such as Melvin Harris (whose book naming Stephenson as Jack was to be published in 1994 and which clearly had no influence on his integrity and objectives). But it wasn't nailed within the month which causes us all a huge headache for now we have a

first-time forgery focused on about the least likely candidate possible surviving the most vitriolic scrutiny in forging history. This is one-hit wonder time, isn't it? This is Terry Jacks and his sickly sweet 'Seasons in the Sun'. Or Leicester City catching everyone cold in 2016. It's a miracle, and it would appear that Bongo Barrett was the inspiration behind it. It's so solid - how on earth could anyone contradict it?

PS 'Seasons in the Sun' was the poor man's English re-write of the outstanding Jacques Brel's 'Le Moribund'. Where millions hear only the sugary crap dished-up by Jacks, I hear the genius described by Jacques. Story of my life, perhaps (though don't get too excited, I ain't no dying man just yet!).

[PaulB]

I know that, Graham.
That's fine, but I'm personally certain that "one off instance" and "spreads mayhem" are 20th Century expressions, which simply couldn't have been used by anyone in the late 19th. I also believe that there are one or two other phrases in the Diary that indicate that it's a late hoax.
Not at all - I'd love to know who wrote it. It's just that I think it would be a complete waste of time to look for potential authors from the late 19th or early 20th Centuries.

What time frame would you be looking at?

[Graham]

Sam, I believe we must agree to differ! But believe me, I do look forward to your posts on this and other subjects. Your arguments are invariably cogent and thoughtful.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, please read my posts, if you will! I have said more than once that I don't believe the Diary was written by Maybrick, and I don't believe that he was the Ripper.

I know that, Graham.

Yes, I do see where you're coming from regarding those pesky anachronistic phrases and expressions, but I am not 100% convinced that they could not have been in parlance in the late 19th century.

That's fine, but I'm personally certain that "one off instance" and "spreads mayhem" are 20th Century expressions, which simply couldn't have been used by anyone in the late 19th. I also believe that there are one or two other phrases in the Diary that indicate that it's a late hoax.

If everyone with even the slightest interest in the case agreed that the phrases cannot be authentic, then is that it? Does that imply that we are not genuinely interested in who wrote the Diary if it wasn't Jim?

Not at all - I'd love to know who wrote it. It's just that I think it would be a complete waste of time to look for potential authors from the late 19th or early 20th Centuries.

[Graham]

Sam, please read my posts, if you will! I have said more than once that I don't believe the Diary was written by Maybrick, and I don't believe that he was the Ripper. Yes, I do see where you're coming from regarding those pesky anachronistic phrases and expressions, but I am not 100% convinced that they could not have been in parlance in the late 19th century. If everyone with even the slightest interest in the case agreed that the phrases cannot be authentic, then is that it? Does that imply that we are not genuinely interested in who wrote the Diary if it wasn't Jim? I'm getting that impression from time to time.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Graham, even if they were only "anachronistic-ish", the fact that more than one of them occurs in the same document vastly increases the cumulative probability against the Diary's being an early hoax. As far as I'm concerned, "one off instance" and "spreads mayhem" are enough on their own to place the Diary's authorship in the latter half of the 20th Century.

[Graham]

I know enough. Besides, if there are anachonistic phrases in the text (and there are; three or four of them in the same short document) the back-story is irrelevant.

Sam, I would never ever cast aspersions upon your knowledge of Jack the Ripper in general, and the Maybrick Case in particular. I still don't think that the phrases we refer to are absolutely proven to be anachronistic, but even so they are not the be-all and end-all of the Diary story. There is plenty else to consider.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

I do detect that among some posters, who swear black and blue that the above terms could not have been in use during the late 19th century, appear to know very little about the Diary itself.

I know enough. Besides, if there are anachonistic phrases in the text (and there are; three or four of them in the same short document) the back-story is irrelevant.

[Graham]

One of the problems that has always dogged "diary" is that people don't ask "when" the "diary" was created, but let the argument polarise into whether the "diary" is genuine or a modern fake, and it's a circular argu,emt that goes nowhere.

Well, what you say is fine, but there are posters to this and previous threads who most certainly questioned and debated the possible age of the Diary. I, in my humble little way, was and is one of them. Maybe I don't shout loud enough to be noticed. I never believed Maybrick was either the writer of the Diary or the Ripper; I never believed it dates from the late 19th century. I have certainly considered the remote possibility that it was produced in an effort to get Florence off the hook and out of clink, but for the reason stated above I reject that notion. So what of other possibilities? A combination of Michael Maybrick, George Grossmith and maybe others to smear poor old Jim for some reason or the other? Could be, but I don't think so. As has been mentioned a myriad times, the whole feel of the Diary does not suggest a late-Victorian origin. The language - to me at least, and I buried myself in Victorian authors for many years - doesn't strike true. Could be wrong on this, but I don't think I am.

What has been largely forgotten during the course if this thread is the Maybrick Watch. As it 'appeared' not long after the Diary did, this has always smacked of some kind of 'conspiracy'. Well, to me it has at any rate. Was it simply a coincidence, or what? Those of you who have read 'Ripper Diary' will agree with me that Albert Johnson struck the authors as being the very picture or propriety - with which I could never disagree. But he was involved in the Watch at any rate - he's the one who bought it from the jewellers. So was there a contemporary link between the Diary and the Watch?

We also find that the analysts could never quite agree as to when the ink went onto the paper of the Diary, and the one test (by McNeill) that did date it to the early part of the 20th century was more or less ignored. I never quite got my head around why this should have been. Could it be that the other analysts had already made up their minds - or been ordered to - that the Diary is modern?

Do you think it might just be possible to move on from the boring and increasingly tiresome arguments about 'one-off' and 'top myself'? I know what the response of most posters will be, up to them, but I do detect that among some posters, who swear black and blue that the above terms could not have been in use during the late 19th century, appear to know very little about the Diary itself.

Gone on long enough, but I would just like to end by saying that the more I think about it, the more I think that Melvin Harris was on the right lines - with or without Bongo's involvement at the onset. Does this mean, for what it's worth, that I think the Diary is a fake, then? Yep - not think it is; rather convinced that it is.

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Ike,

Look at some of the Harry Dam writings.

Can you direct us to where we should look, Scott? Google takes us either to what looks like Dutch Wiki sites or else straight back to Casebook threads.

Cheers,

Ike