Where do current experts stand on the Diary?

[Kaz]

I think it is an old forgery which was going to be sold to newspaper when Florence was hung could the diary be a rough draft that was then going to be copied up all neat and tidy in a nice new book with the hand writing to match maybricks?

Doesn't seem plausible, why not still have it published, flo was spared the noose but was never found 'not guilty' of the crime?

You think the diary came out of battlecrease so who did write it? And why did they goto the lengths of putting arsenic in the folds of it? Why not sign it off 'James Maybrick'? What are the chances of a fraudster fooling one of the best handwriting experts (Hannah koren)?

The handwriting doesn't prove JM didn't write the diary, its perfectly plausible he had a split personality, and where is all this handwriting of his anyway???

[pinkmoon]

Hi Caz
Well, if the Diary is a forgery, then I think it's fairly obvious that the forger(s) thought quite carefully about what they were doing; so the mismatch between the Diary script and Maybrick's handwriting would be a bit of a puzzle.

There are a couple of things to say though, I think.

Firstly - you'll be in a much better position to answer this than I, I should think - would the forger(s) have known what Maybrick's handwriting looked like? Would they have had access to a reasonable sample from which to make a copy in the first place?

The other point is that it's incredibly difficult to forge the handwriting of another at length with any degree of real conviction. Yes, superficially, it may convince; but under analysis by somebody trained to look for signs of forgery, it would almost inevitably fall down.

Kujau had access to Hitler's handwriting and had practiced copying for some years before the diaries were forged. Even so, his very good emulation of Hitler's handwriting actually wasn't good enough to convince. The handwriting in his diaries intially passed muster under analysis because the comparative samples used in analysis were also his forgeries.

Talk about luck.

The fact that the script in the Maybrick Diary doesn't match Maybrick's known handwriting doesn't seem to have hindered the Diary much in any case - as you will know, psychologists and graphologists alike (some of them quite learned, I believe - the psychologists, not the graphologists, I mean) have stated unequivocally that the Diary demonstrates a disturbed mind that might very well have belonged to Jack the Ripper.

Thus, I think if you were a forger, and you didn't have access to Maybrick's handwriting; and/or you were unaware that any samples of Maybrick's handwriting suvived, or weren't an expert forger confident that your emulation of Maybrick's handwriting would be successful - you might have opted for your own handwriting instead.

If the Diary is a modern forgery, it hasn't been entirely unsuccessful, has it? No, it hasn't made a vast fortune for its creators - which is universally accepted as genuine it may well have done - but its origin is still disputed, decades later.

I don't personally believe that the Diary was written by Maybrick; nor that he was Jack the Ripper - but I'm open to other possibilities. It could be a modern fogery, or an old hoax. Either way, I'd be interested to know the truth one day.

I think it is an old forgery which was going to be sold to newspaper when Florence was hung could the diary be a rough draft that was then going to be copied up all neat and tidy in a nice new book with the hand writing to match maybricks?

[Sally]

Hi Sally,

It's a reasonable observation on the surface, but why on earth would a forger, or forgers, hoping to do better than Kujau and stay out of prison, do the research required to get the paper and ink right this time, then make absolutely no attempt to copy their chosen subject's handwriting? They must have known the scrutiny to which their finished product would be subjected, if they used the Hitler Diaries as their 'how not to' guide.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Well, if the Diary is a forgery, then I think it's fairly obvious that the forger(s) thought quite carefully about what they were doing; so the mismatch between the Diary script and Maybrick's handwriting would be a bit of a puzzle.

There are a couple of things to say though, I think.

Firstly - you'll be in a much better position to answer this than I, I should think - would the forger(s) have known what Maybrick's handwriting looked like? Would they have had access to a reasonable sample from which to make a copy in the first place?

The other point is that it's incredibly difficult to forge the handwriting of another at length with any degree of real conviction. Yes, superficially, it may convince; but under analysis by somebody trained to look for signs of forgery, it would almost inevitably fall down.

Kujau had access to Hitler's handwriting and had practiced copying for some years before the diaries were forged. Even so, his very good emulation of Hitler's handwriting actually wasn't good enough to convince. The handwriting in his diaries intially passed muster under analysis because the comparative samples used in analysis were also his forgeries.

Talk about luck.

The fact that the script in the Maybrick Diary doesn't match Maybrick's known handwriting doesn't seem to have hindered the Diary much in any case - as you will know, psychologists and graphologists alike (some of them quite learned, I believe - the psychologists, not the graphologists, I mean) have stated unequivocally that the Diary demonstrates a disturbed mind that might very well have belonged to Jack the Ripper.

Thus, I think if you were a forger, and you didn't have access to Maybrick's handwriting; and/or you were unaware that any samples of Maybrick's handwriting suvived, or weren't an expert forger confident that your emulation of Maybrick's handwriting would be successful - you might have opted for your own handwriting instead.

If the Diary is a modern forgery, it hasn't been entirely unsuccessful, has it? No, it hasn't made a vast fortune for its creators - which is universally accepted as genuine it may well have done - but its origin is still disputed, decades later.

I don't personally believe that the Diary was written by Maybrick; nor that he was Jack the Ripper - but I'm open to other possibilities. It could be a modern fogery, or an old hoax. Either way, I'd be interested to know the truth one day.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Sally,

It's a reasonable observation on the surface, but why on earth would a forger, or forgers, hoping to do better than Kujau and stay out of prison, do the research required to get the paper and ink right this time, then make absolutely no attempt to copy their chosen subject's handwriting? They must have known the scrutiny to which their finished product would be subjected, if they used the Hitler Diaries as their 'how not to' guide.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caroline,

The answer, to my humble mind, is simply that nobody is perfect and a gaff is nearly always made, large or small.

Those are my 2 pennies for what they are worth.

Even the most well-known modern joker, Jeremy Beadle, got caught out on occasion.....


Phil

[caz]

I've always thought that if the Diary is a forgery, the forgers may have learned from the outcome of Kujau's Hitler Diaries.

Exposed mainly because the paper used for the 'diaries' contained modern paper brighteners and Kujau had used modern ink; a theoretical forger may well have discerned that a manufactured Jack the Ripper Diary would require contemporary paper and ink consistent with the 1880's.

It would've been possible to do that, of course, and perhaps not too far-fetched when one considers the sums of money potentially at stake if a manufactured Diary was accepted as genuine.

Hi Sally,

It's a reasonable observation on the surface, but why on earth would a forger, or forgers, hoping to do better than Kujau and stay out of prison, do the research required to get the paper and ink right this time, then make absolutely no attempt to copy their chosen subject's handwriting? They must have known the scrutiny to which their finished product would be subjected, if they used the Hitler Diaries as their 'how not to' guide.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

PM,

I think I see where you're coming from....I think also that Paul Feldman possibly made a discovery that didn't fit in with his scenario and possibly chose to believe only what he wanted to believe.

Graham

Mr Feldman wanted to make a movie out of this so his findings had to be dramatic and maybrick had to be the ripper.He didn't follow up the basic early leads properly and like I said when you draw up a time line the solution looks quite simple.

[Graham]

PM,

I think I see where you're coming from....I think also that Paul Feldman possibly made a discovery that didn't fit in with his scenario and possibly chose to believe only what he wanted to believe.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Like I said if you take a pen and paper and do a time line of events regarding the diary it is glaring obvious what has happens.No way Mr Barrett forged diary and nobody with an ounce of sense would use him in a scam.

[Sally]

I've always thought that if the Diary is a forgery, the forgers may have learned from the outcome of Kujau's Hitler Diaries.

Exposed mainly because the paper used for the 'diaries' contained modern paper brighteners and Kujau had used modern ink; a theoretical forger may well have discerned that a manufactured Jack the Ripper Diary would require contemporary paper and ink consistent with the 1880's.

It would've been possible to do that, of course, and perhaps not too far-fetched when one considers the sums of money potentially at stake if a manufactured Diary was accepted as genuine.

[Graham]

I never accepted that either of the Barretts forged the 'Diary', neither did I accept Melvin Harris' claim of a "nest of forgers" in Liverpool. He said he could name them, but never did. There never was a conspiracy.

With regard to the age of the 'Diary' and the Watch, here again the 'experts' and their various supporters could never agree, a situation which is today being repeated on the "Private Sale" thread of this Forum.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Since Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison published their books, which is now getting on for 20 years ago, I really don't think very many people now accept that the 'Diary' was written by James Maybrick and, ergo, James Maybrick was Jack The Ripper. I think Caz would agree with this?

I think at the time of its 'discovery', there were £-signs in a lot of eyes, and I would suspect that a lot of entrepreneurial types saw it as another Hitler Diary, but a genuine one this time.

Speaking purely personally, my only interest in the 'Diary' is (obviously) who wrote it and when, where it was for however many years, and what did Keith Skinner find out about it? On the other hand, if answers to none of these questions are forthcoming, I won't lose much sleep.

Graham

Hi Graham,people did have their judgement clouded by the glint of gold the diary offerd.Mr Feldman didn't follow up things that were close to home regarding the diary .I personally held the believe that the diary was written after 1988 by Mike Barrett however meeting Mr Barrett several times I came to the conclusion very quickly he was no master forger .When the truth about the diary comes out we will we be disappointed that there was no conspiracy or nest of forgers and the explanation how it appeared will be very straight forward.

[Graham]

Since Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison published their books, which is now getting on for 20 years ago, I really don't think very many people now accept that the 'Diary' was written by James Maybrick and, ergo, James Maybrick was Jack The Ripper. I think Caz would agree with this?

I think at the time of its 'discovery', there were £-signs in a lot of eyes, and I would suspect that a lot of entrepreneurial types saw it as another Hitler Diary, but a genuine one this time.

Speaking purely personally, my only interest in the 'Diary' is (obviously) who wrote it and when, where it was for however many years, and what did Keith Skinner find out about it? On the other hand, if answers to none of these questions are forthcoming, I won't lose much sleep.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

It looks like keith skinner discoverd information back in 2007 which explains the history of the diary .

[CPenney]

Martin Fido, in his podcast on "The Police, the Jews and Jack the Ripper" calls it an obvious forgery (can't recall his exact quote).

[Haskins]

Well Stewart Evans, the greatest JTR expert, calls it a cheap fake.

Colin Wilson is dead?

Yikes, no thankfully. I must have confused him with another author - and too late to edit! I see now how Mcnaughtan got so confused.

Sad to hear about Paul Begg being ill.