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

[AdamNeilWood]

New book alert:

THE MAYBRICK MURDER AND THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE END GAME
by Christopher J.M. Jones and Dr Daniel L. Dolgin

In 1889 Victorian England was shocked to its very core by a scandalous murder case in Liverpool. A young American woman, Florence Maybrick, was found guilty of killing her much older husband James by poisoning him with arsenic extracted from flypapers. It was a story that had everything: sex, drugs and adultery. Queen Victoria and three American presidents were to be caught up in the drama, and Florence was to spend fifteen years in prison for the crime - but did she really murder her husband?

In 1992, the story took a new and even more dramatic twist. A diary was found, allegedly written by James Maybrick, in which he supposedly confessed to being the world’s most notorious serial killer: Jack the Ripper.

The diary has proved to be one of the most controversial historical documents of all time. To some the diary is a true account, a window into the mind of the killer. To others, it is an obvious and transparent hoax.

Using a large amount of new material and research, the authors of this book present their evidence which they believe finally solves two of the greatest mysteries in the annals of crime.

Hardcover, 300 pages, illustrated in colour throughout.

To be published 12 September 2022.

Pre-order before 9 September 2022 to receive a signed and numbered edition.

https://www.FlorenceMaybrick.com

[Herlock Sholmes]

Will the book be available in the shops Adam? I’m asking because I have a friend with a book voucher which can only be used in the shops?

[erobitha]

Interesting to see Christopher Jones has written this with a clinical psychologist. I believe this doctor has collaborated with Christopher before and has a keen interest in the life and times of Florence Maybrick.

Should be interesting to see what new revelations they have uncovered that can put the whole diary mystery to bed once and for all.

[rjpalmer]

Should be interesting to see what new revelations they have uncovered that can put the whole diary mystery to bed once and for all.

Um, put to bed? Is that where we are at?

Are you familiar with the story of Hiroo Onoda?

[erobitha]

Um, put to bed? Is that where we are at?

Are you familiar with the story of Hiroo Onoda?

I'm simply giving Chris and his team the chance to present the evidence he believes that fully demonstrates that the diary is a modern hoax. It is something yourself and Orsam have fallen short with, despite your own self-congratulatory back-slapping antics.

Perhaps someone genuinely has the absolute proof now.

Perhaps not.

At least Onoda was committed to doing things properly, even if others did find it amusing.

[rjpalmer]

Although it is primarily concerned with the question of Florence Maybrick's guilt or innocence, it might be noted that Chris Jones briefly touches on the Maybrick Hoax in the following Rippercast:

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Podcast - Whitechapel Society presents Chris Jones: Motive, Means & Opportunity: Did Florence Maybrick commit murder?


The relevant passage runs between 1:10:13 and 1:14:04, commencing with a reference to the Eddie Lyons/Battlecrease provenance being a "load of rubbish."

It is interesting to note that the floorboards in Battlecrease are very heavy and were nailed down with brass nails, the originals still existing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm simply giving Chris and his team the chance to present the evidence he believes that fully demonstrates that the diary is a modern hoax. It is something yourself and Orsam have fallen short with, despite your own self-congratulatory back-slapping antics.

Perhaps someone genuinely has the absolute proof now.

Perhaps not.

At least Onoda was committed to doing things properly, even if others did find it amusing.

Surely the use of an anachronistic phrase in the diary should be proof enough?

[John Wheat]

Surely the use of an anachronistic phrase in the diary should be proof enough?

I disagree and the Diary's Provenance is immaculate.

[erobitha]

Surely the use of an anachronistic phrase in the diary should be proof enough?

I am agnostic to the diary. I actually believe it has challenges with the handwriting. Also whilst I believe Maybrick was JTR I do not believe he wrote the Dear Boss letter.

What I debate on is assumptions like this. That’s not conclusive at all about using anachronisms. Here is probably not the thread to have those debates - there are plenty of others elsewhere.

I am very interested in who wrote it and why. Mike or Anne Barrett certainly didn’t!

[Iconoclast]

Surely the use of an anachronistic phrase in the diary should be proof enough?

We've been through this one many times, Herlock, and the closest we have got to a truly potentially anachronistic phrase is Orsam's 'one off instance' which he asks us to understand as 'one-off instance'. His argument around this seems solid but remains unproven. As this is the best he's got, it doesn't even touch the sides in terms of proving the scrapbook to be a hoax.

Although 'bumbling buffoon' and 'spreads mayhem' have also been cited as essentially anachronistic (I'm not sure that would be an appropriate term for language), they are no more 'anachronistic' than, say, 'freshly picked carrots' which - it would appear - was a term no English-speaking person had ever heard of (let alone printed) until as late into the twentieth century as 1947, and who was going to believe that over their Sunday lunch before it finally got captured by Google Ngrams?

An easier 'anachronism' to focus in on, of course, is Maybrick's use of 'Poste House' to refer to the pub he's taking a drink in. This, also of course, is not an anachronism as it is not simply the name of a pub but also a commonly-used term to refer to any old staging post where drinks and food were served and mail left and collected. It's easily enough checked via Google though most of us knew this long before Google was in short trousers.

So, by 'anachronism', I'm looking for - what was it? - the use of 'cannon' in Shakespeare's 'Henry V'. So Maybrick musing about the Football League Division Four fortunes of the MK Dons long before either existed (before anyone checks, I'm making this up - the MK Dons were never in the old Division Four) or bemoaning Florrie's Hoover breaking-down or setting-out to buy Bobo's 'Beano' and Gladys' 'Twinkle'. I think you get what I mean.

So which anachronism was it, Herlock, over which no argument in defence of the authenticity of the scrapbook can clamber?

Cheers,

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

We've been through this one many times, Herlock, and the closest we have got to a truly potentially anachronistic phrase is Orsam's 'one off instance' which he asks us to understand as 'one-off instance'. His argument around this seems solid but remains unproven. As this is the best he's got, it doesn't even touch the sides in terms of proving the scrapbook to be a hoax.

Although 'bumbling buffoon' and 'spreads mayhem' have also been cited as essentially anachronistic (I'm not sure that would be an appropriate term for language), they are no more 'anachronistic' than, say, 'freshly picked carrots' which - it would appear - was a term no English-speaking person had ever heard of (let alone printed) until as late into the twentieth century as 1947, and who was going to believe that over their Sunday lunch before it finally got captured by Google Ngrams?

An easier 'anachronism' to focus in on, of course, is Maybrick's use of 'Poste House' to refer to the pub he's taking a drink in. This, also of course, is not an anachronism as it is not simply the name of a pub but also a commonly-used term to refer to any old staging post where drinks and food were served and mail left and collected. It's easily enough checked via Google though most of us knew this long before Google was in short trousers.

So, by 'anachronism', I'm looking for - what was it? - the use of 'cannon' in Shakespeare's 'Henry V'. So Maybrick musing about the Football League Division Four fortunes of the MK Dons long before either existed (before anyone checks, I'm making this up - the MK Dons were never in the old Division Four) or bemoaning Florrie's Hoover breaking-down or setting-out to buy Bobo's 'Beano' and Gladys' 'Twinkle'. I think you get what I mean.

So which anachronism was it, Herlock, over which no argument in defence of the authenticity of the scrapbook can clamber?

Cheers,

Ike

I was talking of ‘one off instance’ Ike. I believe that I’ve seen the explanations given so far and none of them appear relevant, to me at least.

[Iconoclast]

I was talking of ‘one off instance’ Ike. I believe that I’ve seen the explanations given so far and none of them appear relevant, to me at least.

Okay, Herlock. We have to be careful with our use of language because to call 'one off instance' an anachronism is the same as saying the first time 'emoji' was used in a sentence was also an anachronism. Language is permitted to evolve but each evolutionary step is not therefore an anachronism relative to the new world it enters.

I don't argue at all with Barrat's position that James Maybrick could not possibly have been the first person to ever use the term "one off instance" (I use speech marks here to avoid confusion with the apostrophes I will use later) to mean 'the only time this had or ever would happen'. If this is what was intended by its use in the scrapbook (and I will come on to that) then it either indicates the the phrase was already in use by the time Maybrick used it or else it was written far far later and not by James Maybrick.

My caveat in all this is - by my own admission - a rather implausible one (but not an impossible one) and it needs to be considered. Maybrick may have written those words and he may have meant something else entirely. He was, presumably, not transcribing from his own scribbled notes on a scrap of paper, so he was writing as he was thinking, and we all make grammatical and semantic errors from time to time. It's possible that he was writing "a ...", "a one ...", "a one 'off' ...", and he was already struggling to express what he was trying to say so, in wanting to crack on with what he was writing, he simply finished the sentence "a one 'off' instance", and then moved on to whatever else he was trying to say.

You'll note that Maybrick didn't write "a one 'off' instance", it is true. But it is equally true that he did not write "a one-off instance". Whilst I think it is unlikely that Maybrick meant "a one 'off' instance" when he wrote "a one off instance", we have to be careful to consider all of the reasonable options before we start to say he categorically intended to write "a one-off instance" and therefore meant by it a singular event never to be repeated and was therefore the first person ever to even think of using that expression which otherwise did not enter the Google Ngrams literature until the early 1980s.

Barrat's argument is that Maybrick could not have even thought that thought and I think he is potentially correct, but being potentially correct is a long long long long long long long long long long way from proving a point categorically or of highlighting an unequivocal anachronism.

Cheers,

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay, Herlock. We have to be careful with our use of language because to call 'one off instance' an anachronism is the same as saying the first time 'emoji' was used in a sentence was also an anachronism. Language is permitted to evolve but each evolutionary step is not therefore an anachronism relative to the new world it enters.

I don't argue at all with Barrat's position that James Maybrick could not possibly have been the first person to ever use the term "one off instance" (I use speech marks here to avoid confusion with the apostrophes I will use later) to mean 'the only time this had or ever would happen'. If this is what was intended by its use in the scrapbook (and I will come on to that) then it either indicates the the phrase was already in use by the time Maybrick used it or else it was written far far later and not by James Maybrick.

My caveat in all this is - by my own admission - a rather implausible one (but not an impossible one) and it needs to be considered. Maybrick may have written those words and he may have meant something else entirely. He was, presumably, not transcribing from his own scribbled notes on a scrap of paper, so he was writing as he was thinking, and we all make grammatical and semantic errors from time to time. It's possible that he was writing "a ...", "a one ...", "a one 'off' ...", and he was already struggling to express what he was trying to say so, in wanting to crack on with what he was writing, he simply finished the sentence "a one 'off' instance", and then moved on to whatever else he was trying to say.

You'll note that Maybrick didn't write "a one 'off' instance", it is true. But it is equally true that he did not write "a one-off instance". Whilst I think it is unlikely that Maybrick meant "a one 'off' instance" when he wrote "a one off instance", we have to be careful to consider all of the reasonable options before we start to say he categorically intended to write "a one-off instance" and therefore meant by it a singular event never to be repeated and was therefore the first person ever to even think of using that expression which otherwise did not enter the Google Ngrams literature until the early 1980s.

Barrat's argument is that Maybrick could not have even thought that thought and I think he is potentially correct, but being potentially correct is a long long long long long long long long long long way from proving a point categorically or of highlighting an unequivocal anachronism.

Cheers,

Ike

Ok Ike, I disagree but that’s life and no problem at all. As you know, I don’t follow diary matters but I’m considering getting the new book when it surfaces. A return to Diaryland is a worrying prospect.

One thing that I’ve never really understood though is that the ‘one off incident’ point is such a longstanding one and is, I assume, one of the main (if not the main) point but forward by those who believe the diary a fake, why hasn’t Robert Smith taken the simple step of trying to knock it down. If you’re in any kind of battle or disagreement knocking down your opponents strongest point would surely always be the best tactic? I realise of course that you can’t speak for Robert Smith (who I’m assuming still owns the diary?) but why doesn’t he simply commission a language expert to investigate this point? He’s surely not short of a Bob or three? You could lend him a couple of grand from the back pocket Ike

[Iconoclast]

Ok Ike, I disagree but that’s life and no problem at all. As you know, I don’t follow diary matters but I’m considering getting the new book when it surfaces. A return to Diaryland is a worrying prospect.

One thing that I’ve never really understood though is that the ‘one off incident’ point is such a longstanding one and is, I assume, one of the main (if not the main) point but forward by those who believe the diary a fake, why hasn’t Robert Smith taken the simple step of trying to knock it down. If you’re in any kind of battle or disagreement knocking down your opponents strongest point would surely always be the best tactic? I realise of course that you can’t speak for Robert Smith (who I’m assuming still owns the diary?) but why doesn’t he simply commission a language expert to investigate this point? He’s surely not short of a Bob or three? You could lend him a couple of grand from the back pocket Ike

Well you are of course entitled to exercise your right to disagree, Herlock, but I also must reserve the right to point out that you are speaking from a place of ignorance (and I hate it when people do that - including me, of course - because it confuses all of our dear readers who do **** all research into the scrapbook and therefore think they know the answers to all the questions when in fact they simply know **** all about the case, as much as I love them all, bar Orsam and The Acolytes ovvers).

Why are you speaking from a place of ignorance, I hear you think? Well, it is because of the questions you pose above. In his excellent 2017 25 Years of the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The True Facts, Smith discusses 'one off instance' on pages 40-41 and then again in note 81. Now, you may feel that what he discusses is inadequate, but you cannot say he hasn't addressed the issue. He may not have commissioned a 'language expert', but I venture that they aren't as 'expert' as their title suggests - the evidence of their 'expertise' has been much questioned over the last thirty years with regard to just the scrapbook alone. But have you read his book, Herly? Or have you entered 'DiaryWorld' again without being properly armed for the visit?

I like you, Herlock. You're like I - one of the good guys. But I'm the Guardian of the ******* Truth here so I'm afraid there can be no mercy asked nor shown here when you enter the Gates of Hell. Do the reading (I suggest you start with my brilliant Society's Pillar 2025, though you'll have a hell of a long wait for it unless I've messed-up the title somewhat, so maybe try Inside Story or 25 Years of the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The True Facts itself?) and then return to these shores with your ammunition dry and primed for battle.

It's true I'm stinking rich, by the way, but I am facing multiple law suits for my scurrilous abuse of 'fair use' of copyright in my brilliant Society's Pillar, so I shan't be punting Smithy any of my hard-earned just yet. Unless he wins his law suit or publishes another book, of course ...

Cheers,

Ike

[milchmanuk]

from my thoughts the new book will be about Florence Maybrick killed James Maybrick ,
yes i,ve ordered a copy with the four quid postage as i was feeling ginger.
there probably be a paragraph about floorboards in Battlecrease House for sure to sell it.
it be sociological about states of mind too perhaps.
as i now have swallowed my second pink g & t.

i will read the society pillar again as i never fully downed the tumbler looking device.
and it has come up again in another much older post.
or similar.