Why I find the diary implausible

[pinkmoon]

What I mean about the police is that once Billy Graham dies any police involvement can't really continue because the diary now has a history and as Mr Graham is dead this can't be proved but more importantly for all concerned it can't be DISPROVED .In this glorious country of ours where it is not for the individual to prove his or her innocence but for the court to prove his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the people involved can pop down to the bank and sleep at night as much as they want

[Graham]

Stephen Thomas,

I'm with Caz regarding the Diary - I think it is highly likely to be an old production, conceived and manufactured for reasons I do not understand, and by person or persons unknown. The Watch is a separate issue - it most certainly was subjected to high-technology analyses which failed to establish a modern date for the application of the scratchings, yet how coincidental that it should 'appear' so shortly after the 'Diary'. Well, you tell me, 'cos I don't know. One thing that Caz had always been totally sure of is the total honesty of Albert Johnson.

The only thing I can say about the 'nest of forgers', is that Melvin Harris claimed to be completely convinced that the 'Diary' was a modern con, claimed that it was produced locally in Liverpool shortly prior to its being revealed to a panting public, coined the phrase 'nest of forgers' and repeatedly said he'd soon name names, but never did. Which kind of suggests to me that either there never was a 'nest of forgers', and/or Melvin Harris himself was being conned.

Pinkmoon,

Not sure about what you say regarding a police investigation. The Fraud Squad were certainly interested in the 'Diary' and by definition in Mike Barrett, but no proceedings were ever taken out against him. Maybe Anne Barrett was indeed using her sick father to take the heat off Mike Barrett, but we'll never know. She certainly convinced Feldman (or possibly more likely that Feldman convinced himself that she spoke the truth) that the 'Diary' had been known to her father since about 1940, but I think by then Feldman would have believed anything that supported his beliefs.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Found it very interesting that Billy Graham who was very old and obviously not going to be about much longer is bought into this as the source of the diary.Now with Billy Graham dying any police investigation would come to a halt very convenient.

[Stephen Thomas]

The one thing I am certain of, however, is that there never was a 'nest of forgers'.

Sure, and they never forged the watch either.

[Graham]

Feldman gave me the impression of being a man who'd made his mind up regarding the Diary and its provenance, and was quite willing to move heaven and earth to provide what he was prepared to accept as rock-solid proof of his beliefs. I enjoyed his book, but could never quite go along with him regarding Anne Barrett's alleged descent from Florence Maybrick. Not even Feldman could camouflage the fact that her father was seriously ill and in the early stages of senility, and it seemed that either words were being put into his mouth, or else Feldman was bending what he said to fit his beliefs. It did seem possible that Billy Graham could have been a descendant of Florence Maybrick, but unless and until actual documentary proof is available I can't accept it. He also seemed to go way off course with his 'research' into the pasts of both Mike and Anne Barrett.

Feldman in addition went off at a pointless tangent regarding genuine but distant surviving members of the Maybrick family, and that's where a lot of my interest was lost, as I didn't see the point of it.

Feldman did carry out some genuinely worthwhile research into the Maybrick Case, which in itself is definitely worth reading up if you haven't already done so. I can't with hand on heart say that I hated his book, as it was a damn good read, but the last time I read it (about 2 years ago) it didn't strike me as being anything like the masterpiece of detection it was boomed up to be when first published.

To be honest, unless and until Keith Skinner takes the lid off, I doubt if we'll ever know the true provenance of the Diary. The one thing I am certain of, however, is that there never was a 'nest of forgers'.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

I read it when it first came out and I did find the explanations a bit to convenient

[The Good Michael]

Why lie? If it had been in Anne barretts family since 1940 why lie

After reading Feldman, I felt as if he had been a bit like a lawyer using suggestion to help create this story of Anne being related to Florie Maybrick; not exactly lying, but allowing her to create the story. This is what the book felt like to me. It seemed a pack of dishonesty and manipulation. I hated that book.

Mike

[pinkmoon]

Why lie? If it had been in Anne barretts family since 1940 why lie

[Graham]

Tony Devereux's daughters always vigorously denied that their father had anything at all to do with the 'Diary'. He died shortly after Barrett announced he was in possession of it, so couldn't be interviewed. It was Anne's father Billy Graham (not the evangelist...) who she later claimed was in possession of the 'Diary' from at least 1940, it being handed down to him through the Graham family. Feldman fervently believed this, even though there was neither proof of the Diary's being in Mr Graham's possession, or that he himself was descended from Florence Maybrick, as Feldman also believed.

However and by whatever route Barrett came to be in possession of the 'Diary', his sole interest, at least initially, must have been profit. He wouldn't have been human, otherwise.

Hopefully Keith Skinner, never mind Time, will reveal all sooner rather than later.

Graham

[Kaz]

Okay I will concede that maybrick was a miser however let's get down to the real problem here WHERE DID THE DIARY COME FROM AND WHERE HAS IT BEEN FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS the fact that Mike Barrett claims that he GOT IT FROM A MAN IN A LIVERPOOL PUB and then keeps changing story oh dear oh dear oh dear.if you own something and can't say where it comes from or keep on changing your story where it comes from then I'm sorry you are up to no good this diary should never have been published

Have you read Paul Feldman's, 'The final chapter'?

Theres a perfectly plausible explanation as to why Mike got his grubby hands on it, but for the diary debunkers it just means you call a few more people, liars and frauds...

Its a shame Anne didn't come forward with her grandfather holding the diary, mike has cast a bloody great cloud over the diary from day one.

[pinkmoon]

Okay I will concede that maybrick was a miser however let's get down to the real problem here WHERE DID THE DIARY COME FROM AND WHERE HAS IT BEEN FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS the fact that Mike Barrett claims that he GOT IT FROM A MAN IN A LIVERPOOL PUB and then keeps changing story oh dear oh dear oh dear.if you own something and can't say where it comes from or keep on changing your story where it comes from then I'm sorry you are up to no good this diary should never have been published

[RavenDarkendale]

Pinkmoon

Many rich persons are also misers. Hey, it was blank paper, why let it go to waste?

That said, I don't buy the diary myself


God Bless

Darkendale

[pinkmoon]

I can't see maybrick using an old scrap book and cutting pages out a man of his wealth would use a proper diary

[Damaso Marte]

I'm not going to discuss provenance, or ink samples, or whether a 1880 or 1891 diary can pass for a 1888 diary. I don't know much about any of those things. But I do know a bit about the Whitechapel murders, and the secondary literature about the Whitechapel murders, and that knowledge is enough to make me assign the Maybrick diary to the realm of the improbable.

First, the diary seems strange to me in its limited scope. Who buys a scrapbook thinking "I am going to use this solely to complain about my wife", then starts planning a murder spree, and writes only about the murder spree in that diary. It's not impossible for a person to have such a limited diary - but it's far more likely, imo, that it was cheaper for a hoaxer to only write about the things that people would be interested in. It's also limited in scope a second way: there's not much in there that only the killer would know. The only thing I can find in the diary that might fall into this category is the statement that the killer went back to the scene of the Chapman murder to remove additional organs from the body. I'm not sure this squares with the medical report, which suggests that Chapman's mutilations were expressly made for the purpose of removing her organs, which were removed with one cut. Hardly seems like an afterthought to me. Otherwise, the diary is strangely focused on details that are well known: I know that casebook wasn't around when the diary would have been forged, but it's almost as if somebody went to the casebook victim page and just paraphrased the list of things found near the body, this being one of the few things we know about each of the crimes!

Second, the diary has an undeniably modern take on the killings. In several ways:

• Abberline is the only police official mentioned. The notion of Abberline and the Ripper being engaged in a Holmes and Moriarty battle of wits between two outstanding geniuses is thoroughly modern, read the press reports of the time and many other police officials are being discussed. Where is SIR CHARLES WARREN, about whom the papers of the time would not shut up?
  
• The diary bets it all on the C5 being the only London victims. There was no consensus on this at the time, and if anything most grouped all of the murders together, even the pre-Tabram ones and the torso killings. Even if the Ripper only did kill the C5, why no mention of the other murders? If Maybrick pre-meditated this killing spree long before Nichols took her last breath, why nothing in the diary about Tabram's killer stealing his thunder? Why no gloating that many other crimes were being ascribed to him, furthering his goals and stroking his ego? The writer of the diary forgets the other killings: again, a modern trait, not a trait of persons living in the 1888 news cycle.

In other places, the diary has a very DATED view of the killings, a view more at home in the 70's and 80's than today. For example:

• The diary bets it all on the Diemshitz/horse interruption theory. This is no longer widely supported by the Ripperologist community: the idea that Stride was dead many minutes before the horse arrived, her killer either choosing to leave or being disrupted by a club member, has more support and is to some extent corroborated by forensic and eyewitness evidence.
  
• The diary strongly hints that Maybrick wrote several, if not many, of the letters: it hints that he coined the phrase "Jack the Ripper" and it makes a vague mention of sending rhymes to the police. It's hard to find a serious Ripperologist today who believes that the killer wrote any of the letters.

Before the diary defenders chime in - no, nothing I've posted here disproves the authenticity of the diary in a dispositive way. But I submit that "prove it undeniably false, or else" is a special rule that diary supporters have made up just for this discussion, and bears no relation with how we choose the things we believe, either as individuals or as a society. In reality, we lack the ability to fully prove or disprove many of the things we could possibly believe, so instead we use a mix of logic, intuition, and limited evidence to rank things according to plausibility, and believe only the things that fall above a certain line.

The diary falls below that line for me.