Special Announcement

[John G]

So someone went to all this trouble but NOT to frame Maybrick? They went to all this trouble in order simply to write a hoax about someone they were quite knowledgeable about?

That's a LOT of trouble just for a bit of jolly one wet weekend. Your argument is riddled with bias.

I'm convinced the Diary is a hoax-probably modern although I wouldn't rule out an older hoax.

I think, in all probability, whoever wrote the Diary new quite a bit about Maybrick and not a lot about the Whitechapel murders. I mean, there's virtually no detail about the murders in the Diary although, of course, being short on detail means the hoaxer reduces the risk of being caught out in an obvious mistake. Moreover, there weren't that many decent JtR books in the early 90s and no site like this, of course, so researching JtR wouldn't have been so easy.

Here's a theory. A modern hoaxer has been researching James Maybrick, maybe for an intended book, or perhaps a newspaper article or magazine. Then, for whatever reason, the project is abandoned. At some point they decided to create a JtR diary hoax, possibly inspired by the Hitler Diaries from 1988-just four years before the Maybrick Diary came into the public domain.

Of course, they have to select a murderer. Who better as a candidate they already know a great deal about?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Moreover, there weren't that many decent JtR books in the early 90s

Calm down Mr Rumbelow! He didn't mean you!

[Iconoclast]

I'm convinced the Diary is a hoax-probably modern although I wouldn't rule out an older hoax.

I think, in all probability, whoever wrote the Diary new quite a bit about Maybrick and not a lot about the Whitechapel murders. I mean, there's virtually no detail about the murders in the Diary although, of course, being short on detail means the hoaxer reduces the risk of being caught out in an obvious mistake. Moreover, there weren't that many decent JtR books in the early 90s and no site like this, of course, so researching JtR wouldn't have been so easy.

Here's a theory. A modern hoaxer has been researching James Maybrick, maybe for an intended book, or perhaps a newspaper article or magazine. Then, for whatever reason, the project is abandoned. At some point they decided to create a JtR diary hoax, possibly inspired by the Hitler Diaries from 1988-just four years before the Maybrick Diary came into the public domain.

Of course, they have to select a murderer. Who better as a candidate they already know a great deal about?

I don't think I'll be losing too much sleep over this analysis.

Cheers,

Ike

[Kattrup]

I cannot actually see where you addressed your question to me, Kattrup. You were quoting and responding to a post by John G at the time, who has not answered it either to my knowledge. But if that curiosity is still burning, you could always write to Robert Smith and address your question to the right person.

In the same way that I hang up on anonymous cold callers working for potentially dodgy characters, I'm hanging up on what looks to me like someone's fishing expedition, on a matter that is no concern of mine and I suspect, no real concern of yours either. You have the wrong number.

So when I responded to John G’s post, you felt called upon to comment on the question and wonder about it, in a manner that to me reads as haughty and derisive, but when pressed for an answer suddenly you notice it wasn’t directed at you. How pleasant.

It seems to be a very simple question: has it, to your knowledge, been made public, yes or no?

[John G]

Not a chance, John. Sorry. Just IMHO of course.

Re the Battlecrease electricians, what you have to bear in mind is that they were hardly going to sing like canaries from day one, and from the same song sheet, if the diary was pinched from the house on 9th March 1992 and taken over to Anfield. And nobody knew about the double event that day until Keith Skinner and Colin Rhodes examined the Portus & Rhodes work sheets in more detail after Ripper Diary was published in 2003. Keith knew about Mike Barrett's phone call to the London literary agency on 9th March 1992, while Colin knew about the work done that day in Maybrick's old bedroom. Colin told Keith that he'd have sent Eddie Lyons and his mate to help out there for an hour or two to get them out of the office, while the job itself was allocated for invoicing purposes to the two electricians named on the sheet. Eddie has also described these exact circumstances from memory, with no help from Colin or the work sheets. From what he said about the job, the other electricians who were with him, and why he'd been sent there when it wasn't his job, he could only have been referring to one day, 9th March 1992, and could only have known what he knew if he was actually there. He didn't remember the actual date - naturally enough - and had no idea that Mike Barrett had made a phone call about the diary that very afternoon, so he saw no harm in describing his part in the floorboards job on the first floor.

Paul Dodd has given various accounts of what work was or wasn't done in that part of the house over the years, and he got his dates muddled with the storage heater work, so it's not nearly as straightforward as it looks on paper. I don't believe he ever said he'd lifted every floorboard in the entire house in 1977, and in fact it looks like he didn't, considering what he said during one recorded interview in 2016, when it was put to him that, in the hundred or so years since Maybrick owned the house, if the diary had been hidden there, it probably would have been found before Portus and Rhodes arrived. He responded:

'Well, I would actually doubt that, because until my father came and sadly got rid of a number of the old features which I now have in my side of the house which has never been disturbed, there was very, very little done to that house – it was a strange sort of thing. I mean, he replaced fire places and things that he bought in the forties because, you know it was old fashioned to have these old fashioned fireplaces, but really the only work that apparently had been done was the conversion from gas to electricity – but that's another story and I wouldn't know when that was, but even the old gas pipes and servants' bells and things and everything like that - I actually went through that house to some length myself at one point and all those things were still in place, you know. Nothing had moved - the bell system up to the servants' quarters and all the wiring – although I did work myself there, I think it was always untouched. It was very difficult to get the floorboards up, so I doubt if there would have been much work done to be honest.'

If Paul doubted that the diary would have been found prior to any work done by Portus & Rhodes, that would appear to imply it could have been there while he was working on the house without him knowing about it. Or am I misreading this?

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks Caz for your very informative reply. Much appreciated. The "double event" you refer to on the 9th of March is difficult to explain, unless at least one of the workman was part of the conspiracy, maybe after a chance meeting with MB in a pub during a pint or ten!

However, as to what was found, or whether anything was found, is simply based upon anecdotal evidence, which is deeply unsatisfactory. Not only that, if the Diary was discovered at Battelecrease it means Ann must have lied, which undermines her.

Moreover, if there was a genuine find I can't understand why the workman didn't acknowledge the fact. I mean, in these circumstances they can't surely have believed that they could have been accused of being part of a hoax conspiracy, unless they thought that MB might have sneaked into the house in the dead of night, ripped up the floorboards, and buried the thing there!

[John G]

Calm down Mr Rumbelow! He didn't mean you!

I can confirm that!

[John G]

I don't think I'll be losing too much sleep over this analysis.

Cheers,

Ike

I doubt you would accept any argument that questions your beloved Diary!

[John G]

I just meant that normally, for professionals dealing with historical artifacts, an established and accepted provenance is extremely important. A disputed provenance or no provenance severely lessens the historical significance of the artifact.

But funnily to a Diary Defender the reverse logic is at play: having MORE provenances is better!
I think you pointed it out once, when I mentioned the to most everyone obvious argument that the diary’s lack of provenance points to its recent creation by MB, that the diary actually had two provenances. It seems you think that this makes it twice as trustworthy as having just one - when in fact it does the opposite.
One could imagine that it’s convenient to some to always have one or two disputed origin stories to fall back on when pressed on the MB angle, it serves well as obfuscation.

The problem is that the Diary doesn't have any provenance, at least none that would satisy an historian. Your supossed to be able to show where the document was at any time in its history. But what do we have? Anecdotal evidence for some sort of find at Battlecrease, what we don't know. And those responsible for the find won't even acknowledge it! Or Ann's alternative account about it being in her family for as long as she can remember. Except nobody has a clue how it got there!

Maybrick is just a hopeless candidate in my view. The Diary has zero credible provenance, and it's not even in his handwriting. He's also far too old-50 in 1888, much older than any suspect described by witnesses.

it's also as plain as a pikestaff that whoever the killer was he was a local man with local knowledge. And that ain't James Maybrick.

[John G]

I think someone asked for a reference for my post in which I referred to the floorboards being taken up in 1977.

" Paul was adamant. The house was originally gaslit and converted to electricity in the 1920s. It was re-wired when his father bought it in 1946 and again in 1977 when Paul himself had gutted the place ans lifted the floor boards. Had amytbing been hidden, had was sure that he would have found it then." (Harrison, S, The Diary of Jack the Ripper, Ch 18.)

[Iconoclast]

I think someone asked for a reference for my post in which I referred to the floorboards being taken up in 1977.

" Paul was adamant. The house was originally gaslit and converted to electricity in the 1920s. It was re-wired when his father bought it in 1946 and again in 1977 when Paul himself had gutted the place ans lifted the floor boards. Had amytbing been hidden, had was sure that he would have found it then." (Harrison, S, The Diary of Jack the Ripper, Ch 18.)

Yep, bang to rights. Just checked it. 1977 it was. Apologies for questioning that specific point.

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

"Darren", a workman who was presumably there at some point, posted that it came from the attic.

[John G]

Yep, bang to rights. Just checked it. 1977 it was. Apologies for questioning that specific point.

Ike

No problem, Ike.

[Kattrup]

The problem is that the Diary doesn't have any provenance, at least none that would satisy an historian. Your supossed to be able to show where the document was at any time in its history. But what do we have? Anecdotal evidence for some sort of find at Battlecrease, what we don't know. And those responsible for the find won't even acknowledge it! Or Ann's alternative account about it being in her family for as long as she can remember. Except nobody has a clue how it got there!

Maybrick is just a hopeless candidate in my view. The Diary has zero credible provenance, and it's not even in his handwriting.

100% agree

[erobitha]

Some established facts on the scrapbook:

• Somebody wrote it. We have enough evidence to accept Mike was not the brains behind the content
• The book and paper itself is of the correct age
• The ink test and analysis still remain inconclusive regardless of trumpeting on either side
• Some facts do not chime with official facts but that’s doesn’t mean the official facts were 100% accurate in itself
• The handwriting doesn’t match any known Maybrick handwriting
• It’s provenance has been a challenge from day one. The only thing linking it to Deveraeux was Mike’s testimony for what that is worth
• There was also a watch found with etchings in the back professionally assessed in numerous occasions as being of considerable age - at least decades. The signature uncannily matches Maybrick’s

The rest is and has been for 28 years been open to debate, interpretation, accusation, innuendo and a great deal of suspicion. I am inclined to take Maybrick seriously as a suspect on the science of the watch alone. I have not seen one piece of compelling argument to suggest a reasonable alternative to the results. An old etching tool is nonsense. The degraded particles were in the base. Not down the sides of the scratches - but the base. His signature is uncanny and for me it is a confession piece. The scrapbook may have been fabricated - by who we don’t know. Why we don’t know. How some have made a good case but equally for me the “defenders” have made solid and rational responses to 99% of the issues raised. I believe Maybrick is our man.

[Iconoclast]

I am inclined to take Maybrick seriously as a suspect on the science of the watch alone.

I hope you're quite young, erobitha - I need a protégé to pass on the Iconoclast mantle to. I started my brilliant Society's Pillar with the watch, and it was not without good reason. It seems that we are eerily in tune on this point. I am changing my Last Will and Testament this morning. Expect to hear from my solicitors as soon as The Switchblade gets me.

I believe Maybrick is our man.

Ah - I rest my case. Why don't you try it on for size? "Iconobitha". It's got a certain esoteric ring to it.

Ike
Sitting brilliantly cleverising like Siddhartha under the Bodhi Tree only not as fat