the diary

[Graham]

KD,

I think that it would be generally agreed by the majority that had it not been for the 'Diary', then James Maybrick would never have been considered a suspect for the Ripper Murders. There really is no reason why he should be, apart from the 'Diary'. Rather more is known about his life than, for example, that of Montague Druitt, and although he was undoubtedly an unpleasant character, there is nothing in his 'real' history to suggest that he might have been a serial killer. If the 'Diary' was written as a joke, or as a deliberate attempt at fraud, then I suppose one might say that James Maybrick is something of an inspired subject; however, given that the 'Diary' does contain a lot of information about Maybrick that hitherto was not widely known, then that in itself gives me some cause to suspect that whoever wrote it either knew Maybrick personally or had quite a wide secondary knowledge of him and his life.

Paul Feldman went to incredible lengths in his attempt to prove that Maybrick wrote the 'Diary' and was, by definition, Jack The Ripper; but although his book is extremely interesting reading, I for one don't think that Feldman succeeded.

Graham

[Keith Dracup]

Diary

Why, when, & who wrote the journal remains as much of a mystery, as it did over 20 years ago. That alone make it quite remarkable as a document. I once heard David Canter refer to it`s author, as `a literary genius`. The author`s chillingly accurate use of the casual aside. So typical of sexual serial killers, for example. It`s cold account of events. Very much a kin to the great Oscar Wilde. The mystery continues!

The handwriting alone kills the 'Diary' as being written by Maybrick, at least for a lot of people. However, even if Maybrick didn't write it, then there remains the possibility of a link, however tenuous, to the man himself via some third party. But at this stage we just don't know the reason(s) why the 'Diary' was written, much less who actually wrote it and when. I can only echo what has been said many times previously: Mike Barrett didn't write it.

I don't believe that James Maybrick was the murderer (personal opinion only) but in fact he's better qualified as a potential suspect for the Ripper murders than certain other names which have cropped up in recent years!

Graham

[Graham]

Although I have spent far too many hours researching `Jack` (As my wife would say) I am but a newbie on here, & the kind welcome is very much appreciated, thank you both! If Maybrick is to be dismissed on a factual & evidential basis, than all well & good. But to do so on the strength of this controversial journal, I think would be a mistake. When (& if) we can separate this journal from the man, his movements, & a potential motive, it becomes very different. It then becomes far harder to eliminate him. I cannot say at this point in my research that Maybrick was the murderer. However, I am certain that if the police had been aware of this man`s movements, & habits during 1888, he would most certainly would have drawn attention to himself. Sadly however, they were not. Dismissing the `diary` & dismissing the man is I think the key to the facts.

The handwriting alone kills the 'Diary' as being written by Maybrick, at least for a lot of people. However, even if Maybrick didn't write it, then there remains the possibility of a link, however tenuous, to the man himself via some third party. But at this stage we just don't know the reason(s) why the 'Diary' was written, much less who actually wrote it and when. I can only echo what has been said many times previously: Mike Barrett didn't write it.

I don't believe that James Maybrick was the murderer (personal opinion only) but in fact he's better qualified as a potential suspect for the Ripper murders than certain other names which have cropped up in recent years!

Graham

[Keith Dracup]

Diary & a thank you!

Although I have spent far too many hours researching `Jack` (As my wife would say) I am but a newbie on here, & the kind welcome is very much appreciated, thank you both! If Maybrick is to be dismissed on a factual & evidential basis, than all well & good. But to do so on the strength of this controversial journal, I think would be a mistake. When (& if) we can separate this journal from the man, his movements, & a potential motive, it becomes very different. It then becomes far harder to eliminate him. I cannot say at this point in my research that Maybrick was the murderer. However, I am certain that if the police had been aware of this man`s movements, & habits during 1888, he would most certainly would have drawn attention to himself. Sadly however, they were not. Dismissing the `diary` & dismissing the man is I think the key to the facts.

Hi KD and welcome to Diary World....

Yes, a lot of people were prepared to accept Maybrick as The Ripper on the strength of the 'Diary'. Note I said were rather than are.... Obviously a few still do believe that James Maybrick was the Ripper, but for many, myself included, there is a huge element of doubt, not the least being that the name of James Maybrick was never previously associated with the Whitechapel killer. I'm not saying that this rules him out absolutely and positively, but I think that you'll agree that nearly all 'serious' suspects can be shown to have some established 'form'. I do agree with you that whoever penned the 'Diary' was well-versed in many aspects of James Maybrick's life and personality, and may even have known him. However, this can't be proved at the moment.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Hi Keith,not got a problem with diarys content not got a problem with maybrick been jtr in fact I think maybricks drug addiction might explain killers boldness.what I have a problem with is the lies concerning how it appeared and where it's been for over a hundred years.If you have something in your possession and you have to lie or keep changing your story where it has come from then it is one of the following bent,corrupt,dodgy,stolen.p.s welcome keith you will find this site very interesting I'm new here myself .

[Graham]

Hi KD and welcome to Diary World....

Yes, a lot of people were prepared to accept Maybrick as The Ripper on the strength of the 'Diary'. Note I said were rather than are.... Obviously a few still do believe that James Maybrick was the Ripper, but for many, myself included, there is a huge element of doubt, not the least being that the name of James Maybrick was never previously associated with the Whitechapel killer. I'm not saying that this rules him out absolutely and positively, but I think that you'll agree that nearly all 'serious' suspects can be shown to have some established 'form'. I do agree with you that whoever penned the 'Diary' was well-versed in many aspects of James Maybrick's life and personality, and may even have known him. However, this can't be proved at the moment.

Graham

[Keith Dracup]

Far more to Maybrick, than a `diary`!

I first had the dubious `pleasure` of reading this fascinating journal many years ago. Whether you believe it was actually the work of Maybrick or not, one fact is to my mind undeniable. Whoever DID write this journal, was either the murderer, or a man (& I believe it was a man) who knew very well the workings of a deeply disturbed criminal mind. This fact alone in my eyes eliminates Mr Barrett as it`s author. However, if we take this journal as a `sign post` to James Maybrick`s potential involvement, rather than his `proof of guilt` as so many do, we then begin to uncover a man who far out-weighs virtually all the `suspects` at present, almost banded around at will. I`v heard so many people dismiss James Maybrick over the years, simply using this journal`s controversy as their reason. I would simply reply to anyone who may fall into making this common error, please do take the time to dig a little deeper. Very nice to meet you!

I think the diary is forged possibly to try and help Mrs maybrick during her trial or maybe to sell to a newspaper .forger lost bottle and never tried to unleash this on general public diary hangs round for years and finds its way to Mr Barrett the rest as they say say is history.having met Mr Barrett several times over the years I would say he would not be able to forge also he would not be a suitable person to use in a deception .

[pinkmoon]

Yes, but it isn't a 'diary' in the sense that it's a regularly-kept record of one man's thoughts and doings written down on a daily basis. It's more of an on-going memoir, probably intended to come across as being written as and when time and mood allowed. So many detractors have raised this point, that Maybrick was a wealthy man (he wasn't) and could afford a 'proper' diary - or, to be accurate, two diaries to cover the years 1888 and 1889. Whoever wrote it had access to a nice hard-backed journal or notebook, and used it. These days we'd probably use an A4 pad.

So c'mon, Pinkmoon....just what did Mike Barrett tell you about the 'Diary'....?

Graham

He did let slip one little thing once and I'm wondering if it might be what this 2007 information is.It's only right to point out that meeting and talking to Mr Barrett was extremely frustrating and he is not the most reliable person in the world.

[pinkmoon]

Workman from battlecrease house drinking in Mike barretts local pub just before diary appears on scene could this be to much of a coincidence?Could a chat over a few pints given Mr Barrett an idea? Or could it just be a coincidence???

[pinkmoon]

Yes, but it isn't a 'diary' in the sense that it's a regularly-kept record of one man's thoughts and doings written down on a daily basis. It's more of an on-going memoir, probably intended to come across as being written as and when time and mood allowed. So many detractors have raised this point, that Maybrick was a wealthy man (he wasn't) and could afford a 'proper' diary - or, to be accurate, two diaries to cover the years 1888 and 1889. Whoever wrote it had access to a nice hard-backed journal or notebook, and used it. These days we'd probably use an A4 pad.

So c'mon, Pinkmoon....just what did Mike Barrett tell you about the 'Diary'....?

Graham

Hi Graham, the only consistent thread through the whole story was that he wrote it all by himself and also all he wanted was to raise 300 quid to by a greenhouse and the whole thing just got out of hand.I think the diary will never be explained properly and even if we were told the truth about it with so many lies been told would we believe it

[Graham]

Yes, but it isn't a 'diary' in the sense that it's a regularly-kept record of one man's thoughts and doings written down on a daily basis. It's more of an on-going memoir, probably intended to come across as being written as and when time and mood allowed. So many detractors have raised this point, that Maybrick was a wealthy man (he wasn't) and could afford a 'proper' diary - or, to be accurate, two diaries to cover the years 1888 and 1889. Whoever wrote it had access to a nice hard-backed journal or notebook, and used it. These days we'd probably use an A4 pad.

So c'mon, Pinkmoon....just what did Mike Barrett tell you about the 'Diary'....?

Graham

[pinkmoon]

the only thing

The only thing that makes me think that the diary is a modern forgery is the fact the forger didn't use a proper diary it would have easy and cheap to purchase one in 1880s .I don't know what the availability and price of a blank Victorian diary would have been around 1990 maybe just to expensive for our modern forger

[pinkmoon]

Hi Pinky,

Well, as I said, it would not have hampered the police if Tony had been involved in theft or fraud and had left some evidence of it among his effects when he died suddenly. I just don't believe Mike would have named Tony in such circumstances.

I agree that if this had been someone's attempt to make a killing with a fake ripper confession, you'd think the 'discovery' would have been far better planned. A Battlecrease provenance would of course have been ideal, yet Mike has always rejected this outright, in favour of his hopeless dead mate story.

Following Keith Skinner's 2007 revelation, I knew there would be suggestions that Mike and co must have planted their fake diary in Battlecrease, but nobody explains what the conspirators were hoping would happen when it was found, how they were expecting to make a penny out of it themselves, or why nobody, Mike included, has been willing to acknowledge or promote this perfect provenance. Even if money wasn't the object (which is the usual get-out clause) the fakers should still have wanted the most to be made of an engineered Battlecrease find, to give their hard work the very greatest chance of sucess, yet it was shunned like a bad smell.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz thanks for the nice reply I do believe that any story we are now told about the diary just won't be believed.After meeting Mr Barrett several times over the year's I always got the impression there was something else in the background to all this that hasn't been touched on and I have formed my own theory where diary came from I wonder if it could be same as Mr Skinners which dates from 2007 and hasn't been released to us yet

[Graham]

jumping in....that's exactly right. That's what it said in the book.


Mike

Thank you GM. I really must get my Diary books back from the bloke I lent them to.

Graham

[The Good Michael]

didn't Anne tell Feldman that she type it to Mike's dictation, as his typing skills were non-existent?

jumping in....that's exactly right. That's what it said in the book.


Mike