New Book: The Maybrick Murder and the Diary of Jack the Ripper

[MrBarnett]

Interesting, that Chris Jones said Mike Barrett told him in 2008 the diary came from Tony Devereux (Casebook interview).

Maybe there's hope for my theory after all.

Chris was adamant that Barrett couldn’t have written the diary himself. Apparently he spent a whole three hours with him while he (Barrett) was sober.

[erobitha]

I’d like to pull Chris up on the bible inscription he claims was written by Sarah Ann Robertson herself and not James Maybrick.

The insinuation is she wrote it as some kind of fantasist love letter to herself.

Firstly, if that is true why do the initials J.M. match Maybrick’s own writing?

Secondly, why not just write his full name and not just his initials? Exactly whose benefit was this for? If it was her own fantasy why not just write his full name?

[rjpalmer]

Secondly, why not just write his full name and not just his initials? Exactly whose benefit was this for? If it was her own fantasy why not just write his full name?

With all due respect, could the answer be because she was a little more subtle than the Maybrick hoaxer?

Does an 'affectionate husband' write to 'My Darling Piggy' and then sign his full name 'James Maybrick' like he was signing a bank statement? Wouldn't it come across as a little unnatural?

And I didn't get the impression that Dolgin and Jones were suggesting that Robertson made the inscription as part of a girlish 'fantasy.' That's just plain weird.

The suggestion was that she deliberately hoaxed it to leave the impression with her friends or perhaps family that she had been legally married to Maybrick. There is no evidence that she ever was, so the inscription can be seen as suspicious.

What interests me is that you are fixated on the two initials while apparently unbothered that the inscription itself bears little or no resemblance to Maybrick's handwriting.

Let's remind ourselves what Feldman wrote:



Minor point: Feldman does not say that the initials match. He says they are 'similar,' but we'll let that go for now.

Either way, shouldn't you be more concerned with the longish inscription not matching Maybrick's handwriting?

What I find amusing is that Thomas Mitchell's argument--unconvincing though it may be--has always been that the Diary doesn't match Maybrick's public hand because his private hand differed so greatly--even in matters of letter formation and general competency--that we can safely ignore the half dozen professional document examiners who have studied the diary and unanimously rejected it as a fake. I can't imagine there is hardly anyone that accepts this ever-so-convenient argument, but that's what Thomas evidently believes. Yet here we have what purports to be a sample of Maybricks private hand and it in no way resembles the diary, either.

So, are you really sure you want to go down this road?

Anyway, how about this for a working theory.

Sarah Robertson gets hold of James Maybrick's private diary. He left it behind when he left for parts unknown. He had initialed the inside cover, as people sometimes do. Thus, the initials are genuine.

At some later point, Robertson cleverly or not so cleverly constructs the inscription above and below the pre-existing initials. The slightly pat and convenient phrase "from your affectionate husband' is the motive for her deception.

Having not even seen the inscription myself, I don't really have a dog in this race, but from what Feldman and Jones state, it seems at least plausible. Considering all the money Feldman spent researching the diary, one would think he would have tried to have the inscription authenticated, but if a professional document examiner ever looked at it, he does not say. I just find it an interesting minor mystery.

[erobitha]

Why must I remind myself of what Feldman wrote? What does Feldman’s point of view have anything to do with mine?

I have proven on a couple of occasions now that a couple of Feldman’s theories were wrong. I believe his assessment of the bible to be the same.

I guess painting Sarah Ann Robertson as some kind of fantasist helps build a picture that could suggest that Maybrick and Robertson may not even had any connection with each other? Is that what Chris is trying to say here RJ?

The initials match, that I have no doubt.

Worth noting the inscription is from 1865 and the diary was allegedly penned in 1888 onwards - some 23 years later.

[rjpalmer]

The initials match, that I have no doubt.

Setting aside that this is your amateur opinion, should we care if two initials match, if the long inscription doesn't? This needs explaining, and I've already given you one possible explanation. There could be others.

Have you even seen the inscription, and if, so can you upload an image of it to this site?

There are examples of Maybrick's handwriting from the early 1870s in Virginia. If you want to convince us that this is Maybrick's genuine handwriting, you'll need to have a comparison made by a professional.

As for the rest of it, you sound a wee bit paranoid. Nowhere do Jones or Dolgin suggest that Maybrick didn't have a relationship with Robertson. Once again, you are attaching some sinister meaning of your own to what they actually suggested.

By the way, I don't recall Jones implying that Barrett wasn't involved in the creation of the diary. He gave his opinion, based on seeing examples of Barrett's writing, that he couldn't have written it alone, ie., by himself. This isn't the same thing as saying that Barrett was not involved, and he later suggested something to the effect that the hoax had been written by 'committee.' Indeed, he stressed that Barrett could be quite imaginative and shrewd.

[Iconoclast]

Some notes here to just unmuddy some of the waters around here ...

The serious poster may wish to consider whether an inscription in a Bible given to a 'wife' or wife is written in a private hand (one which only the author would ever read) if it is written in a gift. Personally, if I give a gift and write in it an inscription, I use a formal hand because it's not an appropriate vehicle for my informal hand. But - if you're hellbent on muddying the waters - some might choose to dodge the reality of the situation in order to argue for a contradiction somewhere.

Chris Jones argued that the Victorian scrapbook contains none of the significant social, domestic, professional, and civic events which Maybrick took part in between spring 1888 and spring 1889 and therefore this implies that the scrapbook is a hoax written by someone who was primarily relying for Maybrick information upon Bernard Ryan's book (and possibly Christie and Morland). It's a fair observation - that the scrapbook is utterly devoid of any information whatsoever (pretty much) that was not somehow related directly or indirectly to the Whitechapel crimes, therefore that information could come from the wealth of books on the subject, thus avoiding having to know too much about Maybrick's life in that period of time. I would ask the serious poster to consider an alternative proposition or conclusion to draw from this paucity of information own the scrapbook: that James Maybrick actually did document all of these events in his diary, possibly even nightly inscribing intimate details of the family birthdays, the children's schooling, the events in the household involving the staff, raucous evenings in his den with his men friends, his and Florrie's trips and social events, his civic duties such as attending for jury duty, his relationship with mistresses, his sexual peccadilloes, Christmas days and Christmas presents, holidays in Wales and other places, business trips to Scotland and elsewhere, visits to London to see Michael, calling on Gustavus Witt in the Minories to review and contribute to Witt's commercial interests, amongst many other potential personal interests which he felt worthy of recording in his personal diary which he probably kept locked-up at home whilst his murderous antics were recorded in his office in his scrapbook which was found - it appears - on March 9, 1992, and tragically found its way into the careless hands of Michael Barrett. But where is that personal diary, I hear you ask? Well, I don't know where it is or even if it ever existed. That's not the point. The point is that Chris Jones is so hellbent on muddying the waters that he has assumed that the documented Robert Smith very creatively referred to as a 'diary' in order to flog some product in the mid-nineties was what James Maybrick kept as his sole record of events at that time. No such assumption is possible because we can't now know. If Maybrick kept another diary, we are unlikely to now find out, but the absence of such a personal diary is not therefore evidence that his murderous confessional is the only record he kept of his wider life.

This is why my role in your lives is so important. I consider it my duty to protect you all from faulty thinking, and the muddying of waters, and the poisoning of wells ...

No, honestly, you're welcome.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Quickly, from Feldman - a book that every serious poster should have read.

On that note, do us all a favour - if you've read **** all about the case, how about you think long and hard before posting trenchant views on the subject?

[rjpalmer]

Thanks, Thomas.

How are those initials supposed to match Maybrick's? Mr. Hartley wants us to ignore the inscription's dissimilarity to the diary by stating this was written in 1865, but he is apparently happy with using Maybrick's wedding certificate from 1881 for comparison purposes when it comes to the initials. Sounds a lot like confirmation bias.

Anyway, I'm with Feldman. I see no resemblance. It looks like the same penman as the rest of the inscription, so now that I've seen it, I withdraw my earlier suggestion.




His 'private hand' looks more formal than his 'public hand'! And now he has a third writing style for personal gifts.

[erobitha]

The marriage certificate has the M exactly like the bible inscription.


The problem I have here, however, is I am unable to verify if the marriage certificate was by James Maybrick's hand. There is a good chance it could have been a likeness copy taken by a church clerk to copy that of the original for their own records, which is what we see today. If that is the case, I cannot say it was by Maybrick's hand.

However, is it not uncanny how the clerk can mirror almost the same M style used in the bible inscription? He must have known Sarah Ann Robertson well to mimic her writing so closely. That loop must have been very common.

[rjpalmer]

Here's a teaser.

There is one passing statement in the Jones and Dolgin book that should greatly excite people who believe the diary is authentic. I'll be interested in seeing if they notice it and understand the implications.

[Ally]

Here's a teaser.

There is one passing statement in the Jones and Dolgin book that should greatly excite people who believe the diary is authentic. I'll be interested in seeing if they notice it and understand the implications.

That's a rather broad teaser. At the very least you could narrow it down to chapter. Help the people out.

[rjpalmer]

That's a rather broad teaser. At the very least you could narrow it down to chapter. Help the people out.

It's in Chapter 7. It's just a small detail about James Maybrick, but I am sure that Feldman (or the Hoaxer) would have exploited it had they known.

[Losmandris]

I think this is a case for some people wanting something to be true so much their minds will literally make it true, regardless of fact or probability. After listening to Chris Jones' talk I just cannot see how JM could ever be considered JtR. All the evidence pointing that way is just so full of holes and needs too many massive leaps of faith. I am in no a fan of any kind of 'suspectology' and do not believe we will ever find out who the murderer was. But this Maybrick tale just takes the cake. Hopefully some one will 'fess up at some point. I really hope they do because this whole faking saga would make a great Netflix series!

[FISHY1118]

I think this is a case for some people wanting something to be true so much their minds will literally make it true, regardless of fact or probability. After listening to Chris Jones' talk I just cannot see how JM could ever be considered JtR. All the evidence pointing that way is just so full of holes and needs too many massive leaps of faith. I am in no a fan of any kind of 'suspectology' and do not believe we will ever find out who the murderer was. But this Maybrick tale just takes the cake. Hopefully some one will 'fess up at some point. I really hope they do because this whole faking saga would make a great Netflix series!

Couldn't agee more , Maybrick and Druitt just non starters ,should be removed from suspect list imo.

[erobitha]

Couldn't agee more , Maybrick and Druitt just non starters ,should be removed from suspect list imo.

I find it just as equally strange anyone could consider anyone but Maybrick.

But then I have only studied his life in great detail for the past few years, so my understanding of the situation is probably not as in-depth as yours.

Tell me what smoking gun exactly did Chris’s book reveal?