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

[rjpalmer]

I fully understand that the vast majority of you reading this know literally **** all about the Maybrick case (not that it stops you having your throwaway opinions) which is why my role here remains so critically important. Integrity at all times.

Shall we discuss the location of Maybrick's study since you spent months on this site telling us it was on the first floor outside his bedroom?

This is crucial since you argued that these were the floorboards lifted on 9 March 1992.

I thought you had read Nigel Morland?

Integrity at all times.

[erobitha]

No, actually I don't see your point. I just see that you've changed the subject and haven't answered.

On threads about Jones and Dolgin's book, and you've claimed that Jones's logic about the watch is flawed.

You still haven't demonstrated why.

How, if the diary is a modern fake, can we reasonably believe that the scratches on the watch are still genuine?

Jones's mantra only makes sense logically, as you believe it does, if the diary is undeniably proven to be a hoax written by the Barretts, who in turn somehow liaised with the Johnson brothers in creating a watch. That is not an established fact, so the logic falls down. Chris doesn't believe Mike wrote it himself, and he says nothing about Anne, who, as I understand, has not deviated from her story of seeing it in 1968.

I do not see it is concluded that the diary is a modern hoax. I've not seen any smoking gun evidence from Chris at all. In fact, I have actually seen Orsam far better arguments. At least Orsam admits that Maybrick could still be JtR even if the diary is a modern hoax, something your logic struggles with.

Chris's logic only works if he can claim Anne and Mike hoaxed the diary, and somehow the Johnsons got wind of it. Insinuating that is not good enough. I'd like to see Chris outright name Anne as the hoaxer; thereby, he believes there was collusion or somehow a connection to the Johnsons. Then his logic is absolutely correct if he can prove it.

Chris Jones saying the diary is a modern hoax and, therefore, so is the watch is typical water muddying and, to be honest, lazy thinking in my view.

[rjpalmer]

A simple typing mistake does not make Ike’s fact irrelevant. However, the fact RJ believed it was a Saturday race and based his whole spiel on there being no Sunday paper I would wager is quite embarrassing for him.

Calling March "April" is not a typo, Old Bean, but you're quite right that I had the wrong day of the week, and salute Thomas for finding a newspaper with the actual time, which I had failed to do.

Still, this was my error and not Jones's, and his point was that the fastness of the time was rather a trite observation by a horse enthusiast, especially in reference to an exciting and eventful steeplechase.

And since Ike also acknowledges Lord Orsam's observation that the course had been altered, why would a racing enthusiast stupidly comment on the fastness of the time? Shouldn't he have instead said something about the shortness of the course?

Jones's original point is that the observation does not ring true, and, of course, we cannot also never forget that the diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting.

At this point it is really quite stupid to pretend the journal was written by Maybrick, and any discussion should center on the identity of the hoaxers. Even Caz Brown recently acknowledge that there are only "2 or 3 people" still delusional enough to believe the diary is genuine.

[rjpalmer]

You see my point old chap?

No, actually I don't see your point. I just see that you've changed the subject and haven't answered.

On threads about Jones and Dolgin's book, and you've claimed that Jones's logic about the watch is flawed.

You still haven't demonstrated why.

How, if the diary is a modern fake, can we reasonably believe that the scratches on the watch are still genuine?

[erobitha]

April?

Who needs a better calendar?

His point remains valid even though it was March and not April. It was a Friday race and the newspapers the following day covered it accordingly.

A simple typing mistake does not make Ike’s fact irrelevant. However, the fact RJ believed it was a Saturday race and based his whole spiel on there being no Sunday paper I would wager is quite embarrassing for him.

Liverpool Daily Post - Sat 30th March 1889 covered it with a full-page review. Extract below.

[Joshua Rogan]

Why deal with 'technicalities' when you can just deal with the truth? Literally, the 'next day' was Saturday, April 30, 1889. You need a better calendar. The race that Frigate won on Friday, April 29, 1889, was reported in various newspapers the following day.

April?

Who needs a better calendar?

[FISHY1118]

Ike ill just say the same back to you, ''its also a shame you havent digested my post and what R.J said in his '' to much doubt , circumstancial and ambiguious interprutations of information for my liking and not enough if any, 'Proof''. Thats Maybrick in a nutshall Imo

Just as others have their suspects,, all with the same problem good in theory lacking in facts and proof . Having said that if you believe he was JtR all well and good, sleep tight with that .

[Iconoclast]

Doesn't that make the comment 'the fastest I have seen' all the more nonsensical and clunky?

Technically, the 'next day' was Sunday and there were no newspapers, but I think you'll want to take a hard look at the papers from the first week of April before your update in 2025. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't found any that mention a time--just that Frigate one by a length.

Why deal with 'technicalities' when you can just deal with the truth? Literally, the 'next day' was Saturday, April 30, 1889. You need a better calendar. The race that Frigate won on Friday, April 29, 1889, was reported in various newspapers the following day. The Sporting Life may even have triggered a thought in Maybrick's head which he then commented on in his scrapbook:



This is precisely what I mean when I talk about obstacles being raised against the authenticity of the scrapbook which are errors, illusions, assumptions, or ugly mendacities.

I fully understand that the vast majority of you reading this know literally **** all about the Maybrick case (not that it stops you having your throwaway opinions) which is why my role here remains so critically important. Integrity at all times.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I do RJ , and i fully expected his reply . Having read your response tho just reinforces my point, how the hell with all this information thats available that cast so much doubt on the validity of the diary could anyone possibly say Maybrick was indeed jack the ripper ? .Its the same with other suspects too , i.e lechmere ,druitt , holmes etc , theres just to strong an arguement against them all than any arguement that comes even remotely close to say they were the killer ! yet people still believe their guy was the one who in fact did the deed. All these suspects cant all be jack the ripper , ''Someones Wrong'' .

It's a shame you haven't really digested any of the points above other than those which reinforce a prejudice - in this case, against James Maybrick.

The trick is to step back and just ponder: of all of the numerous issues which you are willing to believe call out the scrapbook for the hoax you assume it is (and really want it to be), how many individually actually are concrete and meaningful and fully-supported by the facts? And how many are tunnel-visioned assumptions, unsupported in the literature, and based fundamentally on a determined eye which will not consider the possible?

It's all - I hope without exception - going to be covered in my brilliant Society's Pillar 2025, but even in the last few posts you have been shown how killers really do record their terrible crimes in terse language if it suits them (and yet Maybrick's lack of detail over Nicholls' murder - we were told - proved the scrapbook to be a hoax!).

There are so many more of these old (and new) canards which sound compelling and yet have absolutely no basis in fact. One of the truly most compelling reasons to look seriously at James Maybrick is the watch which bears his known signature. That's pretty good going for a bunch of Liverpool scallies in the pre-internet age, isn't it? But you just let it go 'Whoosh!' - right over your head - because it doesn't fit your narrative. Think about it: a James Maybrick confession appears long before his signature is out there on Google and it matches his known signature. This is not compelling, it is damning! Erobitha showed us the letter 'K' because it is so idiosyncratic and yet so consistent, but the whole signature in the watch is a true facsimile of Maybrick's. Of course, one can rationalise this critical piece of evidence against Maybrick away, but the human brain is very good at finding ways out of cul-de-sacs when it feels trapped.

If you get excited every time someone posts 'the thing that nails the scrapbook as a hoax' but don't then get deflated when it is immediately shown to be a facile argument, you are a victim of your deep conviction.

I've got another one to discuss but I have somewhere to be today so it may have to wait.

Ike

[FISHY1118]

Excuse me for butting-in, Fishy, but do you see what Mr. Ike is doing here?

It's a well-known Maybrickian maneuver known as 'passing the onus,' which sounds a little painful to one's bowels. As distasteful as it might be, it is important to keep a nose out for it, which is not hard to do, as it crops up in nearly every post.

In a nutshell, Ike is saying that we must start from a position of belief--that the diary is real and came from under the floorboards--and it is up to Jones to prove that our belief is incorrect.

But Jones isn't making a claim--Robert Smith is. Jones and Dolgin are merely responding to a claim that Smith made or heavily implied in his 2017 book-- ie., that the diary came from under the floorboards of No 7, and thus the diary has a bona fide provenance. An electrician found it, lied about not finding it, and sold it to Barrett (a man he claims he didn't even know) for twenty-five quid.

Jones is just explaining for the benefit of his readers why Smith's claim can't be taken seriously. He's not really making an argument, just giving a counterargument to Smith. You can buy his counterarguments or reject them, but let's keep in mind that the onus is still on Smith, and we do not need to start from a position of belief.

Let us also remember that Robert Smith tried to have his document authenticated--twice--but both attempts failed utterly.

Smith also attempted to sell the rights of the diary to a third party, who also tried to have it authenticated, and this failed, too.

It was three strikes and you're out, and Smith hasn't bothered trying again in over 25 years, because he knows any further attempts at authenticating it will also fail, so he settled instead on writing a book about it, just as Paul Feldman did.

The examiners who tried to authenticate it used the 'holistic' approach, which despite Jay Hartley's handwringing, simply means that they looked at it from every angle: the ink, the paper, the handwriting, the text, the provenance. This is a well-established principle for obvious reasons and is alluded to in every book on document examination.

As Kenneth Rendell pointed out, the diary fell at every hurdle.

But none of this matters in Ike's eccentric world; we must still start from a position of belief in the relic, because if I understand Ike correctly, the story the diary tells is so fascinating and convincing. It feels right. It is up to the doubters to prove that his subjective faith is misplaced, and in his mind, they can't do it. They will never be able to do it. They can erect no hurdle that he is unwilling to climb over, no matter how clumsily, so he can continue in his belief. And there is always hope that they are wrong. Even Dodd must be wrong about his own house. Even though he tells us he gutted the place and lifted all the floorboards, he could have missed it. The onus is on you, Fishy, and on me, and on Jones and Dolgin to prove that Dood didn't miss it and that Fat Eddie didn't really secretly know Mike Barrett. And until we do that, Ike will continue to believe the diary is real. And even if we somehow can prove a negative, Ike can then revert back to Anne Graham's tale, and we can start all over again.

Let's face it: we can't even prove the handwriting is not Maybrick's, for Maybrick may have developed a special handwriting that he only used for confessional journals written in photo albums.

Can you prove otherwise?

Enjoy Jones and Dolgin's book. Ciao.

I do RJ , and i fully expected his reply . Having read your response tho just reinforces my point, how the hell with all this information thats available that cast so much doubt on the validity of the diary could anyone possibly say Maybrick was indeed jack the ripper ? .Its the same with other suspects too , i.e lechmere ,druitt , holmes etc , theres just to strong an arguement against them all than any arguement that comes even remotely close to say they were the killer ! yet people still believe their guy was the one who in fact did the deed. All these suspects cant all be jack the ripper , ''Someones Wrong'' .

[erobitha]

A mantra is something that is said over and over again, and I don't recall Jones saying this more than once. He barely discusses the watch.

A better example of a mantra would be your frequent observation that the watch has stayed in the Johnson family, which avoids mentioning that they tried to sell it to a Texan for tens of thousands of pounds.

I don't know--you'll have to ask Chris Jones--but I think what he meant is that if the diary is a modern hoax, then the watch must be, too. He does, after all, seem to be arguing that the diary was a recent hoax in 1992.

Do you find this illogical? If so, how so?

Do you think it is possible that Barrett or the Barretts came up with the idea of Maybrick-as-Jack, hoaxed the diary in 1992, and then by a sheer bit of good luck they stumbled onto the fact that Maybrick really was the Ripper? And that Maybrick really had made a confession--only on a watch?

And then by another stroke of luck, Johnson discovered, for the first time in over 100 years, confessional scratches on the inside back cover within days or a couple of weeks of Barrett's recent hoax being mentioned in the local papers?

If you recall, the timing was so outlandish that Shirley Harrison nearly "panicked."

Or do you think Albert Johnson lied, and he had already known about the scratches on the watch and somehow told Mike Barrett of all people, who then created a recent hoax based on this information?

Do you see why nobody finds these ideas credible?

No; I agree with Jones. If the diary is a modern hoax, it strikes me as entirely logical to assume the watch must be one, too, but I'd be interested in hearing your explanation how this need not be the case.

An old hoax would be a different matter, but that's a different argument. I think he means a modern hoax.

A mantra is also claiming it’s a Barrett hoax with no evidence at all that it was.

Your above premise is on the basis that that particular fact is established. It isn’t. So a whole host of variables still exist.

Now you have chosen to make the above premise as fact but has Chris Jones? Has he accused Anne of being in on the hoax like you have RJ? How does he square away the fact she claims she saw it in 1968 if it’s a modern hoax?

You see my point old chap?

[rjpalmer]

Chris has this ridiculous mantra "if the diary is a fake then so is the watch!" Wow, that's logic right there.

A mantra is something that is said over and over again, and I don't recall Jones saying this more than once. He barely discusses the watch.

A better example of a mantra would be your frequent observation that the watch has stayed in the Johnson family, which avoids mentioning that they tried to sell it to a Texan for tens of thousands of pounds.

I don't know--you'll have to ask Chris Jones--but I think what he meant is that if the diary is a modern hoax, then the watch must be, too. He does, after all, seem to be arguing that the diary was a recent hoax in 1992.

Do you find this illogical? If so, how so?

Do you think it is possible that Barrett or the Barretts came up with the idea of Maybrick-as-Jack, hoaxed the diary in 1992, and then by a sheer bit of good luck they stumbled onto the fact that Maybrick really was the Ripper? And that Maybrick really had made a confession--only on a watch?

And then by another stroke of luck, Johnson discovered, for the first time in over 100 years, confessional scratches on the inside back cover within days or a couple of weeks of Barrett's recent hoax being mentioned in the local papers?

If you recall, the timing was so outlandish that Shirley Harrison nearly "panicked."

Or do you think Albert Johnson lied, and he had already known about the scratches on the watch and somehow told Mike Barrett of all people, who then created a recent hoax based on this information?

Do you see why nobody finds these ideas credible?

No; I agree with Jones. If the diary is a modern hoax, it strikes me as entirely logical to assume the watch must be one, too, but I'd be interested in hearing your explanation how this need not be the case.

An old hoax would be a different matter, but that's a different argument. I think he means a modern hoax.

[The Baron]

Excuse me for butting-in, Fishy, but do you see what Mr. Ike is doing here?

It's a well-known Maybrickian maneuver known as 'passing the onus,' which sounds a little painful to one's bowels. As distasteful as it might be, it is important to keep a nose out for it, which is not hard to do, as it crops up in nearly every post.

In a nutshell, Ike is saying that we must start from a position of belief--that the diary is real and came from under the floorboards--and it is up to Jones to prove that our belief is incorrect.

But Jones isn't making a claim--Robert Smith is. Jones and Dolgin are merely responding to a claim that Smith made or heavily implied in his 2017 book-- ie., that the diary came from under the floorboards of No 7, and thus the diary has a bona fide provenance. An electrician found it, lied about not finding it, and sold it to Barrett (a man he claims he didn't even know) for twenty-five quid.

Jones is just explaining for the benefit of his readers why Smith's claim can't be taken seriously. He's not really making an argument, just giving a counterargument to Smith. You can buy his counterarguments or reject them, but let's keep in mind that the onus is still on Smith, and we do not need to start from a position of belief.

Let us also remember that Robert Smith tried to have his document authenticated--twice--but both attempts failed utterly.

Smith also attempted to sell the rights of the diary to a third party, who also tried to have it authenticated, and this failed, too.

It was three strikes and you're out, and Smith hasn't bothered trying again in over 25 years, because he knows any further attempts at authenticating it will also fail, so he settled instead on writing a book about it, just as Paul Feldman did.

The examiners who tried to authenticate it used the 'holistic' approach, which despite Jay Hartley's handwringing, simply means that they looked at it from every angle: the ink, the paper, the handwriting, the text, the provenance. This is a well-established principle for obvious reasons and is alluded to in every book on document examination.

As Kenneth Rendell pointed out, the diary fell at every hurdle.

But none of this matters in Ike's eccentric world; we must still start from a position of belief in the relic, because if I understand Ike correctly, the story the diary tells is so fascinating and convincing. It feels right. It is up to the doubters to prove that his subjective faith is misplaced, and in his mind, they can't do it. They will never be able to do it. They can erect no hurdle that he is unwilling to climb over, no matter how clumsily, so he can continue in his belief. And there is always hope that they are wrong. Even Dodd must be wrong about his own house. Even though he tells us he gutted the place and lifted all the floorboards, he could have missed it. The onus is on you, Fishy, and on me, and on Jones and Dolgin to prove that Dood didn't miss it and that Fat Eddie didn't really secretly know Mike Barrett. And until we do that, Ike will continue to believe the diary is real. And even if we somehow can prove a negative, Ike can then revert back to Anne Graham's tale, and we can start all over again.

Let's face it: we can't even prove the handwriting is not Maybrick's, for Maybrick may have developed a special handwriting that he only used for confessional journals written in photo albums.

Can you prove otherwise?

Enjoy Jones and Dolgin's book. Ciao.

Great post as always Sir!


The Baron

[erobitha]

Excuse me for butting-in, Fishy, but do you see what Mr. Ike is doing here?

It's a well-known Maybrickian maneuver known as 'passing the onus,' which sounds a little painful to one's bowels. As distasteful as it might be, it is important to keep a nose out for it, which is not hard to do, as it crops up in nearly every post.

In a nutshell, Ike is saying that we must start from a position of belief--that the diary is real and came from under the floorboards--and it is up to Jones to prove that our belief is incorrect.

But Jones isn't making a claim--Robert Smith is. Jones and Dolgin are merely responding to a claim that Smith made or heavily implied in his 2017 book-- ie., that the diary came from under the floorboards of No 7, and thus the diary has a bona fide provenance. An electrician found it, lied about not finding it, and sold it to Barrett (a man he claims he didn't even know) for twenty-five quid.

Jones is just explaining for the benefit of his readers why Smith's claim can't be taken seriously. He's not really making an argument, just giving a counterargument to Smith. You can buy his counterarguments or reject them, but let's keep in mind that the onus is still on Smith, and we do not need to start from a position of belief.

Let us also remember that Robert Smith tried to have his document authenticated--twice--but both attempts failed utterly.

Smith also attempted to sell the rights of the diary to a third party, who also tried to have it authenticated, and this failed, too.

It was three strikes and you're out, and Smith hasn't bothered trying again in over 25 years, because he knows any further attempts at authenticating it will also fail, so he settled instead on writing a book about it, just as Paul Feldman did.

The examiners who tried to authenticate it used the 'holistic' approach, which despite Jay Hartley's handwringing, simply means that they looked at it from every angle: the ink, the paper, the handwriting, the text, the provenance. This is a well-established principle for obvious reasons and is alluded to in every book on document examination.

As Kenneth Rendell pointed out, the diary fell at every hurdle.

But none of this matters in Ike's eccentric world; we must still start from a position of belief in the relic, because if I understand Ike correctly, the story the diary tells is so fascinating and convincing. It feels right. It is up to the doubters to prove that his subjective faith is misplaced, and in his mind, they can't do it. They will never be able to do it. They can erect no hurdle that he is unwilling to climb over, no matter how clumsily, so he can continue in his belief. And there is always hope that they are wrong. Even Dodd must be wrong about his own house. Even though he tells us he gutted the place and lifted all the floorboards, he could have missed it. The onus is on you, Fishy, and on me, and on Jones and Dolgin to prove that Dood didn't miss it and that Fat Eddie didn't really secretly know Mike Barrett. And until we do that, Ike will continue to believe the diary is real. And even if we somehow can prove a negative, Ike can then revert back to Anne Graham's tale, and we can start all over again.

Let's face it: we can't even prove the handwriting is not Maybrick's, for Maybrick may have developed a special handwriting that he only used for confessional journals written in photo albums.

Can you prove otherwise?

Enjoy Jones and Dolgin's book. Ciao.

The problem with the 'holistic approach' is that it does not offer any reasonable alternative solutions. It simply attempts to dissect, discolour and discredit each individual component and then stick a bow on it and label it a "hoax." If that's the bar you have set for yourself RJ, then I'm pleased the book did it for you. i would hope others actually 'scratch' beneath the surface and look a little deeper into the nuances around psychology, behaviour and timings.

Yet neither you nor Chris can offer any credible arguments with regard to the watch. Chris has this ridiculous mantra "if the diary is a fake then so is the watch!" Wow, that's logic right there. The old tool, crumbling away as Robbie Johnson perfectly engraves the Maybrick K into the watch with nothing to work from but a will locked away in a drawer in London. Very lucky that Robbie Johnson.




The problem is an accumulation of paper cuts does not kill the debate.

The story does not end with Chris Jones.

[rjpalmer]

So many questions that we need answers to before we buy into Chris' argument. And that's just one of his claims.

Excuse me for butting-in, Fishy, but do you see what Mr. Ike is doing here?

It's a well-known Maybrickian maneuver known as 'passing the onus,' which sounds a little painful to one's bowels. As distasteful as it might be, it is important to keep a nose out for it, which is not hard to do, as it crops up in nearly every post.

In a nutshell, Ike is saying that we must start from a position of belief--that the diary is real and came from under the floorboards--and it is up to Jones to prove that our belief is incorrect.

But Jones isn't making a claim--Robert Smith is. Jones and Dolgin are merely responding to a claim that Smith made or heavily implied in his 2017 book-- ie., that the diary came from under the floorboards of No 7, and thus the diary has a bona fide provenance. An electrician found it, lied about not finding it, and sold it to Barrett (a man he claims he didn't even know) for twenty-five quid.

Jones is just explaining for the benefit of his readers why Smith's claim can't be taken seriously. He's not really making an argument, just giving a counterargument to Smith. You can buy his counterarguments or reject them, but let's keep in mind that the onus is still on Smith, and we do not need to start from a position of belief.

Let us also remember that Robert Smith tried to have his document authenticated--twice--but both attempts failed utterly.

Smith also attempted to sell the rights of the diary to a third party, who also tried to have it authenticated, and this failed, too.

It was three strikes and you're out, and Smith hasn't bothered trying again in over 25 years, because he knows any further attempts at authenticating it will also fail, so he settled instead on writing a book about it, just as Paul Feldman did.

The examiners who tried to authenticate it used the 'holistic' approach, which despite Jay Hartley's handwringing, simply means that they looked at it from every angle: the ink, the paper, the handwriting, the text, the provenance. This is a well-established principle for obvious reasons and is alluded to in every book on document examination.

As Kenneth Rendell pointed out, the diary fell at every hurdle.

But none of this matters in Ike's eccentric world; we must still start from a position of belief in the relic, because if I understand Ike correctly, the story the diary tells is so fascinating and convincing. It feels right. It is up to the doubters to prove that his subjective faith is misplaced, and in his mind, they can't do it. They will never be able to do it. They can erect no hurdle that he is unwilling to climb over, no matter how clumsily, so he can continue in his belief. And there is always hope that they are wrong. Even Dodd must be wrong about his own house. Even though he tells us he gutted the place and lifted all the floorboards, he could have missed it. The onus is on you, Fishy, and on me, and on Jones and Dolgin to prove that Dood didn't miss it and that Fat Eddie didn't really secretly know Mike Barrett. And until we do that, Ike will continue to believe the diary is real. And even if we somehow can prove a negative, Ike can then revert back to Anne Graham's tale, and we can start all over again.

Let's face it: we can't even prove the handwriting is not Maybrick's, for Maybrick may have developed a special handwriting that he only used for confessional journals written in photo albums.

Can you prove otherwise?

Enjoy Jones and Dolgin's book. Ciao.