Why I find the diary implausible

[Kaz]

I would take it very seriously if this had happend.The part of maybrick been the ripper that I like is his arsenic addiction this would explain the killers boldness.

But it DIDN'T happen....


So, throw the diary in the bin, yea?

Seems to me theres many who boo hoo the diary simply because Mike showed up with the diary and not Anne.....

Sorry, thats not enough of a reason for me.


The diary may seem implausible but to date NOTHING proves it to be so.

[pinkmoon]

I've said this before, IF anne had come forward with the diary with her dad what would your view be?

I find it all to easy to write off something this fascinating and compelling on the back of 'who' happened to air it!

I would take it very seriously if this had happend.The part of maybrick been the ripper that I like is his arsenic addiction this would explain the killers boldness.

[pinkmoon]

How do you know how much money has been made? And why does that sway your judgement anyway?

Seems to me you're willing to call complete strangers liars and frauds on the back of....nothing.

Hi kaz,the books regarding the diary have sold very well people have made a lot of money no doubt about that.Anybody with half a brain cell who had a hand written diary in a victorian book which confesses to been jack the ripper would think this is going to worth a fortune let's make some money I would so would you nothing wrong with that.Would I risk destroying its credibility by lying where it had cone from the answer to that is no .I find nothing wrong in authors been rewarded for their hard work it's just when the starting thread of a discovery like this diary is based on a lie.p.s I love you xxxxxx

[Kaz]

[B]
Until that happens, I ignore the "diary" as an assumed (by me) forgery.

Phil

I've said this before, IF anne had come forward with the diary with her dad what would your view be?

I find it all to easy to write off something this fascinating and compelling on the back of 'who' happened to air it!

[Phil H]

It should never have been published before it could be authenticated.

In which case, of course, it would probably never have been published.

I don't know whether you were engaged in Ripper studies when the "Diary" first emerged, but the interest in it was intense.

What did it contain, what was it like, whom did it name as "Jack"? The prospect of a genuine diary, like the opening of the official files in the 70s, had the potential to change the whole subject.

As I recall several of the then leading authors were so eager to see the alleged "diary" in advance that they signed "gagging"/confidentiality agreements - not to release anything about what they saw.

I think I bought my copy of the book on the day of publication. (I took the view that it was a probable forgery as soon as I read that 17 opening pages of the album were missing, and that it was written in such a strange volume. My perusal of the text did not change my view - there was nothing new - nothing revelatory to be found. It read like a novel written from exisiting sources.)

So I think non-publication was not an option. But I agree, authentication - what in the art world is known as "provenance" - was and remains essential.

Until that happens, I ignore the "diary" as an assumed (by me) forgery.

Phil

[Kaz]

If that diary had turned up with the last story of it been from Anne barretts family in the first place there wouldn't have been a problem.Not got a problem with maybrick been the ripper not got problem with maybrick writing diary it's just the fact when it was launched on us the story kept changing where it came from.The last story as told in paul Feldmans book conveniently kills of any chance of any one getting arrested and charged with fraud or possibly going to prison .I started a thread when I first came on hear asking if any one knew how far the police investigation got regarding diary no one has posted back.Like I keep saying if you have something in your possession and you can't say where it has come from or you have to lie where it's come from then it is dodgy bent corrupt nicked stolen pinched fabricated .I take no pleasure writing like this I didn't join case book to cause trouble or upset any one but I think to many people have made to much money out of this diary .It should never have been published before it could be authenticated.

How do you know how much money has been made? And why does that sway your judgement anyway?

Seems to me you're willing to call complete strangers liars and frauds on the back of....nothing.

[pinkmoon]

If that diary had turned up with the last story of it been from Anne barretts family in the first place there wouldn't have been a problem.Not got a problem with maybrick been the ripper not got problem with maybrick writing diary it's just the fact when it was launched on us the story kept changing where it came from.The last story as told in paul Feldmans book conveniently kills of any chance of any one getting arrested and charged with fraud or possibly going to prison .I started a thread when I first came on hear asking if any one knew how far the police investigation got regarding diary no one has posted back.Like I keep saying if you have something in your possession and you can't say where it has come from or you have to lie where it's come from then it is dodgy bent corrupt nicked stolen pinched fabricated .I take no pleasure writing like this I didn't join case book to cause trouble or upset any one but I think to many people have made to much money out of this diary .It should never have been published before it could be authenticated.

[Kaz]

We need to find out where the diary actually came from first before researching maybrick .It's like putting the cart before the horse.

The provenance has been an ongoing theme since the get go, its been the sole reason for many to debunk the diary and JM as a suspect.

Jame's movements and character is what needs digging around in.

Copies of his handwriting may go some way in helping, his 'real' handwriting!

[pinkmoon]

Indeed.

We need to find out more about the character of James Maybrick!

where to begin

We need to find out where the diary actually came from first before researching maybrick .It's like putting the cart before the horse.

[Kaz]

This man produced five children out of wedlock, two of them AFTER his marriage, and he had the check to call his wife a whore? What a rat!

Indeed.

We need to find out more about the character of James Maybrick!

where to begin

[Limehouse]

This man produced five children out of wedlock, two of them AFTER his marriage, and he had the check to call his wife a whore? What a rat!

[caz]

Hi GM,

Most modern hoax theorists don't believe the diary could have been written before 1987 at the earliest, so that's a line they have drawn for themselves. I believe it was written earlier than that, which would make it an 'old' hoax I suppose, but how much earlier I wouldn't like to guess. The scientists can't put it any later than the 1960s, which seems reasonable enough to me unless any evidence emerges to suggest otherwise.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Hi Caz,

What do you consider a modern hoax? I believe the hoax was done sometime after 1960. Would that be modern in your eyes? I have no idea where the line is, or actually, even if it matters.

Mike

[caz]

If anyone thinks that the diary's failure to mention Sir Jim's illegitimate brood points to post-1987 hoaxers who didn't know their facts, may I gently remind them that Bernard Ryan's Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, first published in 1977, and in Penguin Books in 1989, has been proposed by modern hoax conspiracy theorists as a (if not the) major source of the Maybrick info that appears in the diary.

However, on page 28 of my Penguin edition, Ryan writes that by 1887:

...Florence Maybrick had learned of her husband's mistress. She learned that he was the father of three children born out of wedlock before his marriage, and that he had sired two more children by the same woman since he and Florence had been married.

...Somewhere in Liverpool, she now knew, there was a woman who loved her pompous husband as much as she did, a woman who depended on him and had been willing to continue to bear his children after he had married another.

On page 96, there is the following reference to brothers Michael and Edwin breaking the seal on James's will and reading it:

It was written in James's rather shaky hand on blue paper.

And yet this did not prompt the diary author to access James's shaky handwriting in order to copy it.

The inference is pretty clear: either Ryan's book was not consulted by the diary author or a deliberate decision was taken not to mention Maybrick's second family and not to make the handwriting look like his.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I have re-read the Diary to refresh my memory regarding the writer’s claims.
For starters the coincidence of his working in Lime Street in the City is not mentioned.
Maybrick was supposed to be a joker who liked to play on such coincidences. Lime Street is and was in 1888 the main railway station in Liverpool.

Good point, Lech. But it doesn't help pin down an earliest time for the diary's composition, which is what you are presumably interested in, since the handwriting alone tells you it wasn't Maybrick. Of course, there are all kinds of dangers in speculating what the real Maybrick would have chosen to include if he had been the ripper or a fantasist, and a joker to boot, recording his thoughts in the blank pages of a Victorian guard book. That surely has to be a complete unknown.

The Diary claims that Whitechapel was selected because it was in London, and because of the coincidence of name with the Liverpool district were Maybrick says he first saw his wife with her lover (even though they claimed to have only started their affair in November 1888 – i.e. after the murder the Diary claims Maybrick committed).

Yeah, and couples were always open and honest about when they began or ended love affairs, particularly when one was married and Queen Victoria was still on the throne.

Incidentally, Whitechapel in Liverpool is a street, not a district as such. It's just round the corner from Maybrick's childhood home.

The writer claims Maybrick was a frequent visitor to London anyway!

So what? The writer got that right, but it doesn't tell us a blessed thing about when it was written.

I don’t believe that the information pertaining specifically to Sarah Robertson by name was published until after the Diary was released. (Or was she mentioned by name in the 1968 book Etched in Arsenic?)

Sarah Robertson doesn't appear in the index for Etched in Arsenic.

The diary author only mentions one victim by name - 'Kelly' - and doesn't name anyone when referring to either of Florie's 'whoremasters'. Only one of Sir Jim's sexual partners appears to get a mention - a mistress at the time who is referred to merely as 'mine'. That could be a deliberate style choice, in portraying the killer's character, or it could be that Sarah Robertson's name was not known to the author, but again it doesn't indicate a date for pen meeting paper - which science currently puts before 1970.

No aspect of Maybrick’s relationship with Robertson gets mentioned in the diary.
This is because her name was not known until after the Diary’s publication.

You have not established any such cause and effect. The author clearly had someone in mind when referring to Sir Jim's mistress, so if it was not Sarah it was someone else, but as she isn't named we can't know how much was known about this woman but not included for whatever reason.

Similarly the writer of the Diary had Maybrick premeditatedly and artificially acquire a comfort zone in the London Whitechapel (a location selected purely because it the name matched the Liverpool district) by walking the streets to gain familiarity.

Not 'purely', no, unless you think the writer was intentionally sharing a play on words with the readers. As I said before, a spoof diary with Maybrick in the ripper's role only needed to take advantage of him having been a frequent visitor to London, and the rest would have followed naturally enough. Whitechapel London was suitably rich in easy victims for whoever decided to prey on them, and the streets where they operated were easily accessible wherever the real Maybrick happened to be for business or pleasure. Walking the actual streets to gain, or regain sufficient familiarity, would have been a no-brainer for anyone turning 'Sir Jim' into JtR.

Maybrick mentions his children by Florence several times in the diary. He never mentions any children by Sarah Robertson.

Considering the author wanted to portray Sir Jim as a not terribly nice specimen of manhood, I can't say I'm particularly surprised, whether the children's existence was known about or not. I dare say Fred West must have talked fondly of his kids at times, even those he murdered. Serial killers are well known to get emotional about certain family members or pets, for instance, while showing utter disregard for other lives. And a Victorian husband whose mistress had been popping out illegitimate babies would have had his reasons for not leaping to acknowledge himself as their biological father, even if they looked the spit of him, which nobody seems to know.

Love,

Caz
X