Why I find the diary implausible

[Lechmere]

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.

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).

‘I know for certain she has arranged a rondaveau with him in Whitechapel… it was there I finally decided London it shall be. And why not, is it not an ideal location? Indeed do I not frequently visit the Capital and indeed do I not have legitimate reason for doing so.’

The writer claims Maybrick was a frequent visitor to London anyway!
The writer also claims that Maybrick deliberately made the Whitechapel area his comfort zone – by learning the street layout…

‘I have taken a small room in Middlesex Street, that in itself is a joke… It is indeed an ideal location. I have walked the streets and have become more than familiar with them. I said Whitechapel it will be and Whitechapel it shall. The bitch and her whoring master will rue the day I first saw them together. I said I am very clever, very clever. Whitechapel Liverpool, Whitechapel London, ha ha. No one could possibly place it together. And indeed for there is no reason for anyone to do so.’

In 1891 Alexander MacDougall published some details concerning the relationship between Sarah Robertson and Maybrick, but only referred to her as Mrs Maybrick and did not mention any East End connection.
MacDougall’s treatise was very sympathetic to Florence Maybrick and claimed she was innocent of James Maybrick’s death, for which she had just been found guilty.
It was clearly written with the assistance of Florence Maybrick’s defence team, headed by Sir Charles Russell.
It was from a transcribed document from the Russell papers that pretty much all the information about Sarah Robertson, by name, derives.
It seems obvious that Sarah Robertson presented this information to the defence team herself.
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?)

While I am not sure whether Maybrick lived in or even visited Sarah Robertson’s Bromley Street address, there would have been reason viz-a-viz the Whitechapels to ‘place it together’. In other words there were people who would have known Maybrick who lived in the East End.

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.
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.

One other thing about Sarah Robertson.
If she had five or six children by Maybrick (and this wasn’t a figment of her imagination) then they were not born with the name Maybrick, even though she sometimes chose to call herself by that name and seems to have told her relatives that she was married to James Maybrick.
So why didn’t she register all these children with the name Maybrick?
Clearly she knew the nature of her relationship with James Maybrick and repeatedly (so it’s claimed) bore him children despite this.
What does this say?

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

[Wickerman]

Well Mr Ed. if it was only a summary you wanted, I could have helped you out...

The Diary.

In a brown paper package, like many you’d see.
It was coming to London, was coming to me.

Then a knock on my door, and as I turned to look.
In walked a man, with just half a book.

“It’s a diary” he said, “it was given to me”
“It’s a hell of a story, just wait and see”

So we sat in my office, in silence we read.
And in shear disbelief, I looked up and said.

“To see if it’s real, and in case there’s a doubt,
some tests will be done, we’ll have it checked out”

So we tested the paper, we tested the ink.
Then at first our results made my heart want to sink.

Then a second opinion, in case it was wrong.
And what we heard back made us want to go on.


The writing we thought we could verify clearly.
but did we succeed ? .....well, some would say ...nearly.

The age of the book we established, .....almost.
but the age of the ink ? .....well, some would say ....close.

They said that the words such a killer might write.
I said, “could we prove it ?” ....well, some said, ...”not quite”.

And in test after test more opinions we sought.
the proof would elude us, it always fell short.

So with money and time we invested so long.
We had to show confidence, we were not wrong.

And with heads held up high, we then published our word.
And stated quite firmly, ....”no one could prove fraud”


There you have it, in a nutshell.

[headcoate]

Applause, Wickerman, applause! Am I right in detecting an Edwardian influence here? (Edward Gorey, of course.)

[curious4]

Diary/verse

Applause, Wickerman, applause! Am I right in detecting an Edwardian influence here? (Edward Gorey, of course.)

I concur. Great stuff!

C4

[curious4]

Diary

Hello all,

I am handicapped in this question by being so sure that this diary is a fake, that I refuse to buy it.

However, just looking at the photographs published here, I believe the language/wording to be all wrong.
For example: He would have said "sobeit" or "so be it", not "very well", would have spelled "gentleman" with a capital G, and as one word, not "laid beside", but "laid to rest beside", "whosoever", not "whoever" and definitely not "history do tell" - he wasn't a rustic.

My opinion, derived from wide reading of books of the same period - most of them old copies, my copy of "Oliver Twist and The Uncommercial Traveller" being over a hundred years old (advantage of only being able to afford second hand copies), so the language hasn't been modernised.

No, definitely a fake!

Cheers,
C4

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

Thanks for posting this nugget:

‘I have taken a small room in Middlesex Street, that in itself is a joke… It is indeed an ideal location. I have walked the streets and have become more than familiar with them. I said Whitechapel it will be and Whitechapel it shall. The bitch and her whoring master will rue the day I first saw them together. I said I am very clever, very clever. Whitechapel Liverpool, Whitechapel London, ha ha. No one could possibly place it together. And indeed for there is no reason for anyone to do so.’

I have no JTR books with me in Japan, so I rely on people to share such things. Having read the book back in the 90s, I recall this kind of thing permeating the book. It isn't real emotion. It isn't what a diarist would right. It explains too much that a real diarist never would have said. It answers simple questions like: How did Maybrick gain familiarity with the streets? That question is easily answered by his having an office in London and a brother living there and need not be put into words in a diary, yet the hoaxer needs to explain that he has walked the streets to gain familiarity. He answers the obvious question that must have been in the hoaxer's own mind, but is something unnecessarily put down in his scrapbook. It is the real proof of hoaxing for me.

Mike

[Livia]

Mrs Maybrick's Woe

It seems obvious that Sarah Robertson presented this information to the defence team herself.

I think it's more likely that some of the information about
Sarah Robertson came from the Baroness, as Florence
seemed determined to salvage as much of James' reputation
as she could, probably for the children's sake.

From the Atlanta Constitution of June 9, 1894

[Livia]

Mrs Hughes and Mrs Briggs

Just to clarify, I think the scorned woman who gave Florence
the letter from Maybrick's mistress referred to in the above
article is Mrs Constance Louisa (Janion) Hughes,
sometimes referred to as Martha. Matilda Isabel (Janion) Briggs
was married in 1871 to Colonel Thomas Briggs, and her sister
married Charles Albert Hughes on July 12, 1882, a year after
Florence married James.

Mrs Hughes was the woman who informed Maybrick that
Florence was walking with Brierley at the Grand National.

And although Mrs Briggs was separated from her husband,
I think Mrs Hughes was also separated. Mrs Hughes died
in November 1889, a few months after Florence was convicted.
She is buried alone in Halewood cemetery. Charles Albert
Hughes never remarried after her death, died in 1899 and
is buried in Toxteth Park with his mother.

The Maybrick's son, James Chandler was born at 5 Livingstone
Road, Sefton Park, which was owned by Matilda Briggs (her
brother and his family had lived there the previous year).
This could have given either Mrs Briggs or her sister easy
access to Maybrick's papers and may explain why he kept
his study locked at Battlecrease.

Alan Rumohr Hughes (1883-1951) nephew of Charles and
Louisa Hughes, lived in Battlecrease from about 1921 through
1944. His sister, Brenda Avis Hughes married Shirley Sutton
Timmis whose family once lived at 3 Riversdale Road several years
before the Maybricks.

[Lechmere]

Livia
That is a most interesting report.
It certainly suggests that the second mistress was a bit of a ‘bunny boiler’ (no pun intended).
It also seems that details about the two mistresses have been conflated.

I took a look at the 1862 Trade Directory for Vine Street.
The name of one of the tenants at No. 46 may mean something to a more seasoned Maybrick watcher than myself.

[Livia]

Sorry, but none of those names strike a chord
with me, maybe someone else would know of
a connection.

I've re-read the comments of Florence Aunspaugh
(the 15-16 year old daughter of John Aunspaugh,
American friend and business associate of Maybrick)
who spent the summer of 1878 as a teenager at
Battlecrease. She says it was Mrs Briggs who was
madly in love with James and more or less ruled
the roost in the Maybrick home. So I think it was
Colonel Dawson's narrative that conflated the two
sisters, Mrs Briggs and Mrs Hughes. It was Mrs Hughes
who married shortly after the Maybricks and Mrs
Briggs who separated or divorced maybe late
1888/early 1889. The Briggs, married in 1871 never
appear on a census together and their two daughters
appear on the 1881 living with their uncle and in 1891
living with their grandmother. Colonel Briggs died in
1893.

For most of their married life, prior to moving to Battlecrease,
the Maybricks lived in homes owned by Mrs Briggs, first
in Sefton Park where James Chandler was born in 1882 and then
after they returned from Norfolk, in Beechville on South
Road in Grassendale, where Gladys Evelyn was born in 1886.

[Lechmere]

Bromley Street – where Sarah Ann Robertson/Maybrick lived for a while.
No 55 is no longer there would be just past the brick wall on the left hand side of the road
The British Prince hosted an early performance by the Small Faces.
Last time I was in Bromley Street I smashed by sump on that speed hump. It’s a lot higher than it looks.

[Lechmere]

Another view of Bromley Street.

[Lechmere]

46 Lime Street was in the middle of that building somewhere.

[Lechmere]

172 Fenchurch Street – where Sarah Anne Robertson worked - was in the middle of Marks and Sparks, at the far western end of Fenchurch Street, maybe about where that bloke is walking on the other side of the road.
Lime Street enters Fenchurch Street by the brown door to the left of the lady in black. But Maybrick’s office was right at the other end of Lime Street.

[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