Upon reading the Diary again...

[DVV]

Forger not Proust. Rotten book. Idiots many. Money.

[Robert]

Thank you Mr Jingle!

Proust was far too busy to do any forging :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grg5tULy0tY

[Phil Carter]

Forger not Proust. Rotten book. Idiots many. Money.

Hello David,

Classic! Nuff said.

best wishes

Phil

[miakaal4]

Well it's a shame but this thread seems to have been hijacked by the anti-diary brigade. I can't understand why some on this board are so anxious to prevent logical discussion on the book though, very strange.

[Steve S]

Well it's a shame but this thread seems to have been hijacked by the anti-diary brigade. I can't understand why some on this board are so anxious to prevent logical discussion on the book though, very strange.

I agree...Personally,I very much doubt it's what it purports to be.....But trying to pin it down is a worthwhile exercise to some...those to whom it's not don't need to join in..........

[miakaal4]

Summery of mental states.

Maybrick seems to enjoy/endure various states of mind as the Journal progresses. He begins with both aggression; threatening the lovers, and fear; worries about the Journal being found and read. These two are Primary and what follows feeds off of them. He begins to plan his campaign, and although he has already made it clear that his actions are all because of his wife's infidelity, it seems that he is enjoying the planning too much for that to be his only motivation. Added to this, he begins to experience a "thrill" thinking about his wife making love with another. This too seems to take the edge off of his stated motivation. However he dwells upon his intentions like a hungry man thinking about his coming dinner. His hors d'oeuvre in Manchester being something of an anti climax. Oddly, his thoughts of future murder are by no means exclusively sexual, he boasts of throwing acid and gouging eyes, sounding more destructive than perverted. He suddenly becomes magnanimous to his "whores" promising to buy the best knife money can buy to kill them with. "Nothing shall be too good for my whores" ! His aggression is repeated throughout, dreadful promises and post murder gloating. But the fear is always lurking nearby, his 'anger' at Mrs Hammersmith knowing of his poor health, is paranoia. His anger at Lowry for noticing he had stolen some things from the office, probably the Diary itself, and maybe the ink too. But its all about his fear of discovery, of being found out. He decides, it seems, to become Jekyll and Hyde, playing the mild, gentle man to some, and the murdering, cannibal to others. The diary often switches from one of these characters to the other, and it seems that he may be losing control of the switch, just as poor Dr Jekyll does, having to literally poison himself to prevent him murdering again and perhaps being caught. He gives the excuse of his brother insisting he takes dinner with him. But this is lame when you consider the times of the murders, long after dinner anyway. It seems rather, that his fear of being caught in increasing. Having already admitted that he no longer cares about who or how many men his wife sleeps with, he declares that the thrill of his next atrocity is what spurs him on, but he is also having nightmares. This strange mix of desire, loss of what he thought was motivation, and nightmares halts his spree. Albeit briefly. He attepmts to kill again, but is almost caught. His thoughts return to revenge against his wife again, but not for her lovers instead for telling his doctor about his drug use. Once more he promises horror to all, but he is continually distracted during his last killing, and it begins to look like Hyde has lost after all.
So why not throw the Journal into the fire? His desire to kill has evaporated, he is regretful and I believe very frightened that Abberline would catch him. And yet he manages to find a plausible reason not to destroy it. He is secretly proud of it. He believes it shows he is at least a match for his famous brother. So the tone is now all about how love made him a killer. Even to the last words he is blaming all on his "dearest Bunny".
Incredible. A forgery? No way.

[John Wheat]

On balance I would say the Diary is a forgery. There is nothing whatsoever that proves the diary was written by James Maybrick let alone by Jack the Ripper.

Cheers
John

[miakaal4]

Hi there John,
Thats just the trouble John, there is nothing to say that it wasn't either. My personal feeling is that it is genuine and he was the ripper. He does know things he couldn't and the author is as mad as a hatter. But in a clever way!

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Maybrick seems to enjoy/endure various states of mind as the Journal progresses. He begins with both aggression; threatening the lovers, and fear; worries about the Journal being found and read. These two are Primary and what follows feeds off of them. He begins to plan his campaign, and although he has already made it clear that his actions are all because of his wife's infidelity, it seems that he is enjoying the planning too much for that to be his only motivation. Added to this, he begins to experience a "thrill" thinking about his wife making love with another. This too seems to take the edge off of his stated motivation. However he dwells upon his intentions like a hungry man thinking about his coming dinner. His hors d'oeuvre in Manchester being something of an anti climax. Oddly, his thoughts of future murder are by no means exclusively sexual, he boasts of throwing acid and gouging eyes, sounding more destructive than perverted. He suddenly becomes magnanimous to his "whores" promising to buy the best knife money can buy to kill them with. "Nothing shall be too good for my whores" ! His aggression is repeated throughout, dreadful promises and post murder gloating. But the fear is always lurking nearby, his 'anger' at Mrs Hammersmith knowing of his poor health, is paranoia. His anger at Lowry for noticing he had stolen some things from the office, probably the Diary itself, and maybe the ink too. But its all about his fear of discovery, of being found out. He decides, it seems, to become Jekyll and Hyde, playing the mild, gentle man to some, and the murdering, cannibal to others. The diary often switches from one of these characters to the other, and it seems that he may be losing control of the switch, just as poor Dr Jekyll does, having to literally poison himself to prevent him murdering again and perhaps being caught. He gives the excuse of his brother insisting he takes dinner with him. But this is lame when you consider the times of the murders, long after dinner anyway. It seems rather, that his fear of being caught in increasing. Having already admitted that he no longer cares about who or how many men his wife sleeps with, he declares that the thrill of his next atrocity is what spurs him on, but he is also having nightmares. This strange mix of desire, loss of what he thought was motivation, and nightmares halts his spree. Albeit briefly. He attepmts to kill again, but is almost caught. His thoughts return to revenge against his wife again, but not for her lovers instead for telling his doctor about his drug use. Once more he promises horror to all, but he is continually distracted during his last killing, and it begins to look like Hyde has lost after all.
So why not throw the Journal into the fire? His desire to kill has evaporated, he is regretful and I believe very frightened that Abberline would catch him. And yet he manages to find a plausible reason not to destroy it. He is secretly proud of it. He believes it shows he is at least a match for his famous brother. So the tone is now all about how love made him a killer. Even to the last words he is blaming all on his "dearest Bunny".
Incredible. A forgery? No way.

Hi miakaal4!

You are right about his motivation: simply concluding that Maybrick killed purely because of his feelings surrounding Florence is a bit too simplistic for me. Knowledge of her affairs are what may have - possibly - tipped him over the edge, but I do not think that is the whole story. I believe the whole thing was brewing - internally - well before the killing started. This diary is certainly a far more complex creation than some people would have us believe.

Kind regards,

Tempus

[Phil H]

Thats just the trouble John, there is nothing to say that it wasn't either. Not good enough. That's loose, credulous and non historical method reasoning. It would not be acceptable in artistioc or academic circles.

If someone produced a hitherto unknown Leonardo, even if found in a place he had lived in, and looking like his work the onus would remain with those believing it to be genuine to prove PROVENANCE, and by scientific tests, that every aspect of the painting matched period, and what is known of the artist's life and work.

With the dairy that has not been done. As I understand it the provenance remains in question, there have been claims that it was forged, and the handwriting does not match known samples of the supposed author's. Not a good basis for any claims. further the contents appear to have been based on what was available publicly fairly recently and to contain no new FACTS that would convince any reserracher or that stand up to scruting as verifiable.

So no TEMPUS there is EVERYTHING to say that it is a dud, not kosher, a can of worms, a forgery. YOU and your buddies have to PROVE its genuine, not bandy words with those who retain a proper scholarly scepticism.

But then, as your posts demonstrate, you wouldn't know scholarship if it bit you in the butt.

Phil H

[miakaal4]

But Phil we are investigating it. We believe it is real and genuine, but I'm sure Tempus would agree, we would also highlight anything that showed it to be a forgery. I am not into promoting stuff forged by anon. It has, for me, enough creedence to be seriously studied. Fair enough?

[Phil H]

If you look at my post miakaal, you'll see that I am addressing a specific sentence in Tempus' post:

Thats just the trouble John, there is nothing to say that it wasn't either.

That appears to suggest a BALANCE between those who believe the diary to be real and those of us who believe otherwise.

There is no such balance. The entire onus is on the "diaryists" to demonstrate authenticity beyond question. Until that is done, there is no reverse of the fact that the alleged diary/journal (whatever) has NO standing. No one has to make allowances, think about it or do anything else apart from ignore it as they wish.

I respect your approach miakaal, because you have shown reason and sensibility in other posts. If you wish to waste you time (IMHO) on this thing then it is your choice. But wanting or wishing it real, is not the same as proving it and until then, I recommend cautionz and putting it to one side, and making no claims on its basis.

But whether you take that advice is, of course, up to you.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

I think that most people who believe the diary to be genuine stumble over the handwriting expert who said the diary being forged was "impossible". Nothing is impossible. The best conclusion she could have made would have to be "forgery is improbable"

Upon reading the diary again, as is the subject of this thread, I still see nothing that would rule out forgery beyond a reasonable doubt.

It has often be said that the greatest seers are those who report their visions were correct after the fact. There is no reason to completely disbelieve that this could not have been forged by someone with prior knowledge.

This would include modern forgery. And consider this: The police believed that the JtR letters were the work of "an enterprising journalist". So why not the diary? It could have been intended to be discovered soon after Maybrick's death but somehow fell through the cracks. It happens...

God bless

RD

[miakaal4]

Well believe me guys I would not spend one second thinking about the diary if I "knew" for certain it was fake. However I don't, so my strategy is to assume it is real and see if it stands up to the constant checks I am making against it.
If I found what looked like a Picasso, I would have it checked, and if the results from several experts were inconclusive, I would still lock it away, wouldn't you?
In the meantime I am reading other threads, unrelated to Maybrick, because despite all, I still have an open mind on the subject, and I also take your points around someone in the know. I want it to be genuine, but I would not make it so, or bend a fact to fit it.

[caz]

Thats just the trouble John, there is nothing to say that it wasn't either. Not good enough. That's loose, credulous and non historical method reasoning. It would not be acceptable in artistioc or academic circles.

If someone produced a hitherto unknown Leonardo, even if found in a place he had lived in, and looking like his work the onus would remain with those believing it to be genuine to prove PROVENANCE, and by scientific tests, that every aspect of the painting matched period, and what is known of the artist's life and work.

With the dairy that has not been done. As I understand it the provenance remains in question, there have been claims that it was forged, and the handwriting does not match known samples of the supposed author's. Not a good basis for any claims. further the contents appear to have been based on what was available publicly fairly recently and to contain no new FACTS that would convince any reserracher or that stand up to scruting as verifiable.

So no TEMPUS there is EVERYTHING to say that it is a dud, not kosher, a can of worms, a forgery. YOU and your buddies have to PROVE its genuine, not bandy words with those who retain a proper scholarly scepticism.

But then, as your posts demonstrate, you wouldn't know scholarship if it bit you in the butt.

Oh Phil, you give me real fits.

You could of wrot the dairy with one hand tied behind yer back.

Love,

Caz
X