Why I find the diary implausible

[pinkmoon]

Biggest mistake wasn't the handwriting or the content it's was how it was discovered in a good old fashioned Liverpool pub.In fact the forger or forgers had done the hard bit but cocked the easy bit up

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

It's worse than that. Tony Devereux died before Mike announced he had the diary. Tony died on August 8th, 1991, and Mike didn't call Doreen Montgomery until March 9th, 1992, seven months later.

Love,

Caz
X

Yeah, you're right as usual, Caz. I really got to get my books back and have another good read of them during the long nights ahead. But the main point is that Devereux could not be interviewed to say 'yea' or 'nay' to Mike's story, and later Anne's story. Possibly his daughters were merely denying that Devereux had any connection whatsoever with the Diary, as they smelled and suspected some illegalities going on. Now I think about it, I do remember asking myself why it took so long for Mike to contact Doreen after he'd received the Diary supposedly from Devereux. I kind of get the impression that Mike was the kind of guy who'd have instantly scented £££'s, and rushed off left, right and centre to find a buyer. Anyway.

Best,

Graham

[Graham]

Biggest mistake wasn't the handwriting or the content it's was how it was discovered in a good old fashioned Liverpool pub.In fact the forger or forgers had done the hard bit but cocked the easy bit up

If indeed that's how Mike Barrett gained possession of the Diary.......

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Why,why,why,why,why if the story in Mr Feldmans book about the history of the diary that it had been in Mrs barretts family for decades was true than why all the smoke and mirrors and please don't say it was to give Mike Barrett something to do.Like I keep saying if you can't say or you keep changing your story about where something you own has come from then it is dodgy,bent,corrupt,dishonest,

[Lechmere]

Caz
I know this is your specialist subject so I will tread wearily. But with my sceptic’s hat on…

I have seen plenty of evidence that James Maybrick sometimes visited London – but I don’t regard that enabling him to gain familiarity with the backstreets of Whitechapel.

Did James Maybrick work in the East End?
I thought it was claimed he worked for a shipbrokers and had met Sarah Ann Robertson near her work place which was at Fenchurch Street in the City?
I suppose the shipbrokers he supposedly worked in (I don’t know how reliable this claim is) could have been in the East End docks but I would guess the City would be a more likely location.

A lot seems to hinge on the bible which was in the possession of the daughter of the person who registered Sarah Ann Robertson’s death in 1927. It has the inscription:
‘To my darling Piggy. From her affectionate Husband JM. On her Birthday August 2 1865’.
But I believe the handwriting doesn’t match any of James Maybrick’s known handwriting – so could it be that the bible was not Sara Ann Robertson’s or not from James Maybrick?

‘Russell’s Brief’ were notes that seem to have been made for Florence Maybrick’s defence but do not seem to have been used in her trial. Much of the information about Maybrick’s relationship with Sarah Ann Robertson seems to have come from this note. Such as that Maybrick continued with the relationship after his marriage to Florence and details about his early employment in a London shipbrokers office.
I think it is fair to assume that the stories about the extent of Maybrick’s relationship with Robertson that were repeated by the likes of Alexander MacDougall and later Nigel Morland, emanated from unused gambits from Florence Maybrick’s defence – and as such they should be treated with caution.

We know that Sarah Ann Robertson did on occasion call herself Maybrick and her step father seems to have thought she was married to James Maybrick in 1868.
At that time she lived in Bromley Street – quite a long way east, down Commercial Road, but he lived in Liverpool!
I don’t see any evidence that James Maybrick lived in the East End ever, even if she did at various times.

There must have been some sort of connection between James Maybrick and Sarah Ann Robertson and she had connections to parts of the East End. I think Bromley Street is the only East End address that Sarah Ann Robertson can be linked to in the time frame when she could have known Maybrick.

Whatever the exact relationship between James Maybrick and Sarah Ann Robertson and how long it lasted, I don't think it can categorically be stated that it would have resulted in his acquiring a good knowledge of the backstreets of Whitechapel. In fact I think it is a leap to suggest that Maybrick would have had such knowledge..

[caz]

Now I think about it, I do remember asking myself why it took so long for Mike to contact Doreen after he'd received the Diary supposedly from Devereux. I kind of get the impression that Mike was the kind of guy who'd have instantly scented £££'s, and rushed off left, right and centre to find a buyer.

Indeed, Graham. And I'd also be very surprised if Mike could have resisted the temptation to blab to all and sundry about what his old pal had given him, or to ask questions or seek advice, in the run up to contacting Doreen. Yet he didn't apparently say a blessed word about it to anyone outside the family until that telephone call.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Biggest mistake wasn't the handwriting or the content it's was how it was discovered in a good old fashioned Liverpool pub.In fact the forger or forgers had done the hard bit but cocked the easy bit up

Hi pinkmoon,

Mike has never said he got it in the pub. He said Devereux gave it to him when he visited him at home and - confessions aside - has stuck with this version. Neither story would have been good enough, but let's stick to what was actually claimed and not repeat myths.

Of course, if the hoaxer was long dead by the time Mike got it, and had planted it in Battlecrease at some point, the hardest bit would have been having no control over when - or if - it was discovered, or by whom and under what circumstances. I have no doubt that whoever was unlucky or unwary enough to bring it to the public eye would have been similarly accused of being involved in fakery. Albert Johnson was just more difficult to accuse over the watch than Mike was over the diary, the two being like chalk and cheese. It didn't stop people trying though.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I have seen plenty of evidence that James Maybrick sometimes visited London – but I don’t regard that enabling him to gain familiarity with the backstreets of Whitechapel.

Hi Lech,

Not 'sometimes' but 'frequently'. Not that it would have mattered to whoever decided to turn Maybrick into Jack. Whoever the ripper was would presumably have made it his business to gain the required familiarity with the geography, if he didn't already possess it in spades, before engaging with the local prossies with a view to murdering them.

Did James Maybrick work in the East End?
I thought it was claimed he worked for a shipbrokers and had met Sarah Ann Robertson near her work place which was at Fenchurch Street in the City?
I suppose the shipbrokers he supposedly worked in (I don’t know how reliable this claim is) could have been in the East End docks but I would guess the City would be a more likely location.

Sorry, maybe I should have said near, rather than in the East End. I can't remember if it has been established exactly where in London the shipbroking office was, but somewhere in the back of my mind I thought Maybrick met and courted Sarah in Stepney. I'm afraid my area of speciality is more the history of the diary (as much as can be known) than the Maybricks.

Anyway, in 1851 Sarah was living in Postern Way, Tower Hill, and Maybrick arrived in London in 1858. By 1868, as you say, Sarah was living in Bromley St, off Commercial Rd, a 'brisk ten-minute walk to Whitechapel', according to Shirley Harrison's book. I notice she also claimed that in the 1870s, when Maybrick was back in Liverpool and in business with G.A.Witt, he did visit Witt's main offices 'from time to time', which were in Cullum St, on the boundaries of the City and Whitechapel. I don't know her source for this particular claim.

We know that Sarah Ann Robertson did on occasion call herself Maybrick and her step father seems to have thought she was married to James Maybrick in 1868.

Indeed so. That year Thomas Conconi added a codicil to his will, referring to his '...dear friend Sarah Ann Maybrick, the wife of James Maybrick of Old Hall Street, Liverpool...'

That may have been Maybrick's official residence, but it seems very unlikely that he was spending all his time there, while his mistress, who considered herself his wife, was stuck in the East End. There is no evidence of a falling out, and it appears that she eventually came north to be closer to him and he certainly died owing money for clothes a dressmaker had made for a woman who was not his legitimate wife, Florie.

I don’t see any evidence that James Maybrick lived in the East End ever, even if she did at various times.

But who has claimed he ever had an official residence in that part of London? He presumably lived close enough, while working at the shipbroking office in his youth, to satisfy any hoaxer's brief.

I think Bromley Street is the only East End address that Sarah Ann Robertson can be linked to in the time frame when she could have known Maybrick.

What do you mean 'could have known' him? That codicil is clear enough, surely, unless you are suggesting the reference was to a different James Maybrick of Liverpool. No, I'm afraid you can't take the East End entirely out of Maybrick's background, which leaves the question open as to how well he knew the streets. It's much more of a leap to claim he had 'no real connection' and therefore would have had no reason to acquire the knowledge that the real ripper would have needed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Caz
I don’t think we really know how frequently James Maybrick came to London.

But I find this a bit of an oddity:
“Whoever the ripper was would presumably have made it his business to gain the required familiarity with the geography, if he didn't already possess it in spades, before engaging with the local prossies with a view to murdering them.”

The standard rationale for familiarity and proximity for the culprit is that they live relatively locally and the crime scene (as the phenomenon is not restricted to murder) is within their comfort zone. They feel comfortable committing crime the as they know the area and can get away or hide more readily.
It would be somewhat unusual for the culprit to artificially manufacture a comfort zone by sussing an area out in a premeditated manner before hand. Particularly if it is suggested the culprit was committing his crimes as a consequence of some mental debilitation or mania.

I strongly suspect the ‘courting Sarah in Stepney’ suggestion is founded on no more than the Bromley Street address.
Extrapolations of that sort can too readily become accepted as fact.

In 1861 Sarah as living in Fenchurch Street –apparently in the premises in which she worked in the jewellery business. Maybrick was supposed to have got to know her as a consequence of this occupation so their meeting logically must have resulted from her work in the City rather from her East End connections.

While in Liverpool Maybrick did work on behalf of Witt, and Witt had offices in the City. Maybrick may have visited those London offices but we have no way of knowing if he did. It may not have been necessary. Saying he did for sure is another one of those unfounded extrapolations.

I don’t doubt that Sarah knew James Maybrick.
During the timescale when she could have known him, the only East End address we have for her is Bromley Street.
She must have logically met him while living and working at Fenchurch Street, which is in the eastern part of the City but not in the East End. Thereafter the only East End address she was linked to was Bromley Street. That is why I said the only address she could have been linked to while knowing Maybrick was Bromley Street.

Sarah seems to have defined herself by her relationship with Maybrick. Telling people many years later about the relationship. Naming herself Maybrick at various times. Keeping that strange bible.
How did Florence’s defence team come by the statement about Sarah?
Did she approach them? Did she offer help to her rival – a woman accused of murdering the father of her supposed children?
And why didn’t the defence team use this information?

The impression I have of Sarah is of a slightly unhinged bunny boiler, obsessed with Maybrick. Probably exaggerating the nature of their relationship. Did Thomas Conconi ever meet him? Was she bitter about Maybrick turning his back on her without seemingly a second glance? All the incriminating stuff about their relationship seems to have come from her. Why did she chose to ‘spill the beans’? What did she want to get out of it at that juncture?
As the source of information about the relationship is clearly partial, it should be treated with caution.

I somewhat regret commenting on a Maybrick thread as I’m not really very interested in him as a suspect. I was only going on my general impression about the reliability of his proffered East End connections, which was that they were not based on very firm foundations – which I think I have shown.

[Livia]

In the Nottingham Mercury of Saturday, February 17, 1866,
James Maybrick of 46 Lime Street, Gentleman is listed as
a customer of the English Joint-Stock Bank Limited. The branches
of this bank were listed, but there were none in Liverpool or
Lancaster, but there was one on Clement's Lane, which is
off Lombard St which becomes Fenchurch Street. Lime Street
is about 3 blocks away from the bank's Clement's Lane
office.

Also in the Newcastle Daily Journal of August 24, 1866,
in the parish church of Bishopwearmouth, "James Maybrick
(London)" was a member of the wedding party in the
marriage of George William Taylor, Esquire of Houghton le Spring
to Miss Sarah Taylor of Sunderland. George William Elliot was
the son of George Elliot, baronet and MP for North Durham.
GW succeeded to the title and was later an MP for Northallerton
and Richmond. Both Elliots have wiki pages, if you're
interested.

According to A W MacDougall's notes, Maybrick's mistress
was staying at 8 Dundas St, Bishopwearmouth during
Florence's trial. That address was the home of George
Smith (who died in October of 1889). There was a George
Smith age 14 born in Sunderland listed as Christina
Conconi's nephew on the 1881 census. To date, I have
not been able to link this George Smith with the George
Smith who was a clerk in Maybrick's Liverpool office and
who signed his will.

On March 17th, 1866, Thomas David Conconi married
Christina Lindsay (Robertson) Case in St Peter's church
Stepney. Sarah Ann Maybrick signed the register.

Edited to add: There is a Christina Robertson age 20 living with
the Reed Taylor family in Newcastle on the 1841 census. I have
not yet been able to determine if this is the same Christina
Robertson as Sarah Maybrick's aunt, although there are no
others of the right age on this census that I've been able to
find. I have just started researching the family of Sarah Taylor,
so I don't know if there is a link between her family and Reed
Taylor on the 1841 census.

[Livia]

On the 1841 census, Sarah Ann Maybrick's grandmother, also
Sarah Robertson, age 55, lived at 105 Bishopsgate with her
daughters Ann, age 25, Margaret age 15, and son Alexander
age 13. Living in the same house is her married daughter
Sarah Bradshaw age 30, her husband George and sons
George age 8, Alexander age 6 and Henry age 1. Bishopsgate
is a stone's throw from Lime Street.

[caz]

Caz
I don’t think we really know how frequently James Maybrick came to London.

Hi Lech,

But I only said 'frequently'; not how frequently. Livia has provided some more info and of course James's musical brother Michael lived in the West End. With business connections, a longterm mistress and a brother based in the capital, it seems a tad silly to argue the point really.

The standard rationale for familiarity and proximity for the culprit is that they live relatively locally and the crime scene (as the phenomenon is not restricted to murder) is within their comfort zone. They feel comfortable committing crime the as they know the area and can get away or hide more readily.
It would be somewhat unusual for the culprit to artificially manufacture a comfort zone by sussing an area out in a premeditated manner before hand.

Well that's for you to take up with the hoaxer, who clearly didn't have a problem with 'Sir Jim' feeling comfortable popping in and out of the area when he had the urge to hunt. Oddly, Colin Ireland was busy proving the diary hoaxer had a point, even as Shirley was busy writing the book that was to accompany the first publication of the diary. Ireland was doing precisely what you consider 'somewhat unusual': he artificially manufactured his comfort zone by sussing out a gay pub in Fulham in an entirely premeditated manner. He made it his New Year resolution for 1993 to become a serial killer, commuting by train from Southend-On-Sea to London, picking up gays from that one pub and murdering them back at their place. You couldn't make it up. Or only if you had a mindset like Ireland's or our diary hoaxer.

I strongly suspect the ‘courting Sarah in Stepney’ suggestion is founded on no more than the Bromley Street address.
Extrapolations of that sort can too readily become accepted as fact.

Extrapolations of what sort? In 1868 Sarah was living at that address, a short walk from Whitechapel, and calling herself Mrs. James Maybrick. Are you seriously suggesting he may never have visited her at that address, or met her nearby, even while he was still based in the City?

In any case, if the couple actually met in the City, while they were both living and/or working there, that would arguably have put him even closer to the cheap and cheerful prossies of Spitalfields than Bromley St. In the late 1860s he could have been walking regularly from the City and down Commercial Rd to see Sarah, passing right through Whitechapel each time. And we know he later went to a brothel two or three times a week while based in Norfolk, Virginia, so the hoaxer wasn't completely daft to pick this seasoned traveller, blotchy-faced arsenic eater and womanising prossie user for his subject.

While in Liverpool Maybrick did work on behalf of Witt, and Witt had offices in the City. Maybrick may have visited those London offices but we have no way of knowing if he did. It may not have been necessary. Saying he did for sure is another one of those unfounded extrapolations.

This is rather frustrating. I was the one who said there was no evidence he needed to visit the Cullum St offices, and added that it was Shirley who made that claim without giving a source, so I am definitely not saying 'he did for sure'.

The impression I have of Sarah is of a slightly unhinged bunny boiler, obsessed with Maybrick.

Charming. We know very little about Sarah's character, while Maybrick was a social climber who didn't have the right equipment for it. He would have considered Sarah beneath him in class and unsuitable marriage material. Many men in similar positions thought it was big and clever to take a mistress they would never dream of making their wife, and string them along for the regular sex, all the while on the lookout for a better bet - which 'Sir James' thought he found in Florie. But they were both gold diggers and as bad as each other, meeting on board ship and becoming infatuated with what each fondly imagined was the other's considerable wealth.

As the source of information about the relationship is clearly partial, it should be treated with caution.

Isn't that a bit rich, following straight on from your 'unhinged bunny boiler' comment? How did you arrive at this impression of Sarah then, from the sparse information we have about her life, from the various sources, partial or otherwise?

At least there is considerably more known about Maybrick's lifestyle and character, yet you say you are not really interested in him 'as a suspect'. As you may or may not know, I don't go as far as to regard him a suspect at all. We have nothing but the questioned diary and watch. But I enjoy trying to assess where someone was coming from, when they decided to turn Jim into Jack.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Caz
I raised the point originally that I found Maybrick unlikely (besides any discussion about the authenticity of the Diary) because I did not feel that the East End was his comfort zone and the likelihood is that the killer committed his crimes in his comfort zone – even though there are exceptional cases such as Colin Ireland where this may not be the case.
You raised the issue that it could be argued that Maybrick could conceivably have artificially manufactured a comfort zone – not the hoaxer. Which is why I took it up with you.

I am seriously suggesting that Maybrick may never have visited the Bromley Street address.
If he did, it seems more likely that he would have taken a train. It would have been a bit of a walk to Lime Street (if this was his residence) and would have meant passing through some rough areas.

The Witt thing may be frustrating – but you brought it up again, otherwise I wouldn’t have mentioned it.

Interestingly Livia’s research seems to indicate that Sarah may have had well-to-do connections herself. I wondering if it could be the case that Maybrick met her in Bishopwearmouth?

I gave the reasons why I thought Sarah was a ‘bunny boiler’. Most of the information about her relationship with Maybrick seems to have come from her.

There may possibly be a clue as to the date the ‘diary’ was written contained in the Sarah Robertson story.
When did Sarah Robertson’s identity and her relationship with Maybrick become common knowledge?
I don’t believe the diarist uses the relationship between Maybrick and Robertson as a device for explaining his East End knowledge, nor indeed does the diary dwell (at all?) on Maybrick’s relationship with her.

[RivkahChaya]

I think maybrick makes a very good suspect his addiction to arsenic could explain the killers boldness

Assuming he was addicted to arsenic, and that wasn't made up for the diary. Do we have any independent verification of that? Also, is that even really what arsenic does to you?

BTW, one symptom of chronic arsenic poisoning is loss of night vision. If Maybrick really was addicted to arsenic, then he's really not a good choice for someone dissecting people in dim light.

[pinkmoon]

This killer wasn't a superman he did take risks if his killings had carried on he would have been caught eventually by the law of averages.Arsenic would explain the boldness of the killer .