Who were they?

[caz]

Shirley Harrison reported that when Mike's mother read The Diary of Jack the Ripper she threw Mike out of her house (he'd been camping on the sofa, apparently).

That's a rather strange reaction. But, as they say, who knows what a man is capable of more than his own mother?

How does RJ imagine this even begins to suggest a suspicion on Mike's mum's part, that her barely literate son might have written the diary, which Shirley Harrison argued was Maybrick's work?

This line of thought is beyond desperate.

Why would anyone have known if Mike and Anne were writing the diary in the privacy of their own tiny home on Goldie Street? This line of thinking seems a little...desperate.

That wasn't my line of thinking, so RJ's selective hearing is back on.

I wasn't talking about an actual creation in their home, but the fact that no suspicions have ever been heard from anyone who associated with Anne or Mike in all the years leading up to 1993, when the first claims of a modern fake hit the papers, followed by the book's publication, that one or other of them might have been willing or capable of creating something like this.

As with the McCanns, armchair critics and keyboard warriors are no substitute for people with local or intimate knowledge of the individuals suspected or accused of a very specific type of offence.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well, RJ, one would have to be properly absorbed into the mind of the man who did it all back in March 1992 to properly understand his motivations and none of us were and none of us can be, but I feel the most rational reason why a man would order an 1880-1890 diary and even eventually agree to purchase (I use the term lightly) an 1891 diary would be to say, "Here's that Victorian diary I got off Eddie Lyons" to whomsoever may have come knocking at his door for it.

If his motivation was to create a hoaxed James Maybrick journal detailing the crimes of Jack the Ripper, then one would have to assume that he would not have run the risk of receiving a diary for a year in which James Maybrick was most noticeable for being long dead.

But why didn't he just seek an undated Victorian notebook, I hear you ask? Well, I don't know why, especially given that that was more or less what he had received from Lyons; but I have to say that the critical bit - for me - is not the type of document he asked for but rather the time period he specified for the type of document he asked for. It is simply impossible to rationalise why a man seeking to hoax a 'diary' of Jack the Ripper would specify a year during which his foil was six feet under.

I put it to you - to iterate - that that is impossible to rationalise, and therefore your hoax theory (and it is your hoax theory) falls flat on its face due to the one thing you cling to the most, that little maroon diary.

No reference to page size, or the need for the unused pages to be both consecutive and undated, but any 'diary' dating from 1880-90 will do, is surely not what anyone with two brain cells would have requested if the object was to obtain an old book to house the thoughts of James Maybrick over two years, between February 1888 and his death in May 1889, while resident in Battlecrease House.

On the other hand, what Mike asked for around 9th March 1992 - but didn't get - was more akin to "the old book" he took to London on 13th April. Only the last page of writing was dated, and 1889 was close to the end of the decade. There was no clear indication of when the first surviving page was meant to have been written, and with many pages removed from the front of the book, the casual observer might have allowed for a date range from 1880. The book had more than 60 surviving pages of writing, followed by 17 unused pages. In fact, one could argue that the advert was generated by someone who had seen this very scrapbook and had it in mind, but was ignorant concerning who might have written it or the period it covered. This is obviously not possible if Mike knew exactly what he was doing and why, but had yet to set eyes on the prize in an auction sale at the end of the month, and turn it into what he had originally described and requested.

Whether the red diary was ordered in the process of trying to create a hoax, or in the process of handling and placing an item of suspected stolen property, it would still represent something 'dodgy' going on in Mike's world at the time. It's not as if we are seeking an innocent explanation, or trying to get this liar off the hook for all his many misdeeds. It's taking a cool and measured approach to what the evidence indicates about the extent of Mike's diary knowledge on 8th March 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

He asked for a blank diary. A blank diary to most people is a blank diary. No lettering, no dates---it's a cover with blank pages. Omlor, Phillips, and Orsam, among many others, have thrown up photo after photo showing blank diaries with no individual dates stamped on them.

Irrelevant. Whoever found a diary for Mike for the year 1891, with printed dates throughout, didn't get the memo. Nor did Martin Earl, who offered it to Mike. More to the point, nor did Mike himself. He ordered the damned thing!

Mike wanted a blank diary from 1880-1890 for one reason only: so the paper would pass any forensic scrutiny.

Speculation. Why would he have bought Diamine ink in that case? Did he confidently predict that no forensic scrutiny - and not even Mr. Diamine himself - would be able to positively identify it?

It had been widely reported in the news that the Hitler Diary fiasco failed, in part, because the Bundesarchiv had quickly determined that the diaries were written on modern paper. The next hoaxer that came down the pike wasn't willing to trip up over that same inanity.

Last-minute forensic scrutiny of the Hitler Diaries revealed several post-1945 elements within days of the 'scoop' being announced. Ironically, three handwriting 'experts' had initially reassured Stern that the diaries were genuine, so Kujau had at least acted like a typical forger and made the handwriting look as much like Hitler's as he could. He'd been faking stuff like this for years and getting away with it by selling to private collectors, who thought they recognised Hitler's hand in the various documents and artwork. Kujau would never have offered the diaries for publication himself. That was a journalist who became involved and promised to make Kujau rich but not to reveal his source.

RJ is suggesting that the 'next hoaxer' wasn't willing to trip up over the 'same inanity' of using modern paper, but used a provably modern ink [and just kept his inky fingers crossed] and then made no attempt to reproduce Maybrick's known handwriting, before finally taking the finished article to market himself. I'm only surprised Mike didn't use his genuine 1891 diary and assume nobody would notice. If it didn't matter to the 'next hoaxer' that the handwriting was all wrong for Maybrick, why would it have mattered to him that Maybrick was dead before his diary was printed?

Cue another silly post by RJ, where the 'next hoaxer' had every reason to predict that, ten years after the Hitler Diaries fiasco, he would have no trouble getting his own efforts published and having a best seller to boot, with none of the consequences faced by Kujau. The ink and handwriting wouldn't matter a jot this time, but the age of the paper? Crikey, that had better be right or they'd have him by the balls in next to no time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Irrelevant. Whoever found a diary for Mike for the year 1891, with printed dates throughout, didn't get the memo. Nor did Martin Earl, who offered it to Mike. More to the point, nor did Mike himself. He ordered the damned thing!

Speculation. Why would he have bought Diamine ink in that case? Did he confidently predict that no forensic scrutiny - and not even Mr. Diamine himself - would be able to positively identify it?

Last-minute forensic scrutiny of the Hitler Diaries revealed several post-1945 elements within days of the 'scoop' being announced. Ironically, three handwriting 'experts' had initially reassured Stern that the diaries were genuine, so Kujau had at least acted like a typical forger and made the handwriting look as much like Hitler's as he could. He'd been faking stuff like this for years and getting away with it by selling to private collectors, who thought they recognised Hitler's hand in the various documents and artwork. Kujau would never have offered the diaries for publication himself. That was a journalist who became involved and promised to make Kujau rich but not to reveal his source.

RJ is suggesting that the 'next hoaxer' wasn't willing to trip up over the 'same inanity' of using modern paper, but used a provably modern ink [and just kept his inky fingers crossed] and then made no attempt to reproduce Maybrick's known handwriting, before finally taking the finished article to market himself. I'm only surprised Mike didn't use his genuine 1891 diary and assume nobody would notice. If it didn't matter to the 'next hoaxer' that the handwriting was all wrong for Maybrick, why would it have mattered to him that Maybrick was dead before his diary was printed?

Cue another silly post by RJ, where the 'next hoaxer' had every reason to predict that, ten years after the Hitler Diaries fiasco, he would have no trouble getting his own efforts published and having a best seller to boot, with none of the consequences faced by Kujau. The ink and handwriting wouldn't matter a jot this time, but the age of the paper? Crikey, that had better be right or they'd have him by the balls in next to no time.

Love,

Caz
X

You do so make me laugh, Caz!

Man learns from failed Hitler fiasco that all that is required is genuine Victorian paper for a Jack the Ripper hoax! How did that work out for him, I wonder?

Well, we know, don't we? It flipping well turns out that you have to get the ink right. And you have to get the handwriting 'right'. And you have to get all the details right. And you have to include all the details readers assume would be mentioned. Et cetera!

Mike and Anne Barrett got the first bit right (but - Lord - how they pushed it to the very edge by doing so only as late as March 31, 1992, where they miraculously purchased a genuine Victorian scrapbook at the very last chance they had) but they made very little effort whatsoever to get any of the other bits right. They were hopeless hoaxers, no?

On the subject of the last minute.com auction purchase, I assume that they were regulars at Outhwaite & Litherland in the run-up to that infamous last minute salvation? They probably had their own seats reserved by the staff, so often did they appear hoping to find a genuine Victorian document to write their hoax into. Mike's hoax? Anne's hoax? I've lost track, by the way!

Keep the gags coming, Caz - you're a stand-up gal, you really are!

Ike

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I cannot tell whether you are having a laugh or not, I really can't. It's really hard to work out as normally you're super-sensitive and unbearably serious and then you go and post what looks for all the world like some sort of weak joke? So I'm not sure whether your post requires an answer?

Okay, I'm going to go with the assumption that you are serious so - in response - if you could just remind us where in the Victorian scrapbook it claims to be a diary that would allow us to clarify things for you.

Cheers.

The writer relates that he travelled down from Liverpool to London, rented a room in Middlesex Street, and then gives accounts of various happenings, including the murders.

Whether you want to call it a diary or not, there are no dates in it for any of the events related.

The only time that I can recall that he gives some indication of the passage of time is when he claims that he killed Eddowes a quarter of an hour after Stride, which is clearly impossible as it would have resulted in Eddowes' body being discovered earlier than it was.

These are signs of a hoaxer at work.

The only joke is the diary/scrapbook, but it seems to be lost on you.

[Iconoclast]

The writer relates that he travelled down from Liverpool to London, rented a room in Middlesex Street, and then gives accounts of various happenings, including the murders.
Whether you want to call it a diary or not, there are no dates in it for any of the events related.
The only time that I can recall that he gives some indication of the passage of time is when he claims that he killed Eddowes a quarter of an hour after Stride, which is clearly impossible as it would have resulted in Eddowes' body being discovered earlier than it was.
These are signs of a hoaxer at work.
The only joke is the diary/scrapbook, but it seems to be lost on you.

Stay on point, please. You made the comment that "It is the only diary I have heard of that does not contain a single date.". In retrospect, I now realise that you did so in order to ingratiate yourself with Fishy, but in doing so you made an utter fool of yourself because you fell for the old "Hold on, it's called the diary of Jack the Ripper but it's got no dates in it so how can it be a diary - must be a hoax!" syndrome when - off course - those of us who have been around these parts for more than two minutes recognised that old canard from three decades ago. It was called a 'diary' by the original publisher, Robert Smith, who wanted to flog as many copies of the book as he could. It's called marketing, if you're interested.

The Victorian scrapbook makes no claims to be a diary. It's just a record of James Maybrick's thoughts and experiences. You can call it what you want but please don't mock that it is commonly referred to as a 'diary'. We all know it ain't.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Stay on point, please. You made the comment that "It is the only diary I have heard of that does not contain a single date.".


You can call it whatever you like: a diary, scrapbook, or anything you care to call it.

Whatever you choose to call it is irrelevant to the point I made.

The writer could reasonably be expected to have given some dates.

Anyone writing such an account would have done so.

He did not.



In retrospect, I now realise that you did so in order to ingratiate yourself with Fishy ...


I have been accused of all manner of things - of being aggressive, arrogant, narrow-minded, stupid, prejudiced, libellous - you name it!

It makes a change to be called ingratiating.

And I suppose you know that to be a fact.

It could not be an assumption, supposition, or opinion of yours.

Could it?



The Victorian scrapbook makes no claims to be a diary. It's just a record of James Maybrick's thoughts and experiences.


It has nothing to do with James Maybrick.

It is a forgery.

I would remind you that you cannot produce any proof that the term 'one-off,' used in it to describe something unique, was in use in the English language in 1889.

The scrapbook, as you call it, is obviously not genuine.

[Iconoclast]

Please see my replies below.
Anyone writing such an account would have done so.
He did not.

I trust that you are not suggesting for even the briefest of moments that the scrapbook's lack of a dating system is some sort of signal that it is a hoax?

Please say you just weren't thinking that one through.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I trust that you are not suggesting for even the briefest of moments that the scrapbook's lack of a dating system is some sort of signal that it is a hoax?

Please say you just weren't thinking that one through.

Does the writer record the date on which he travelled from Liverpool to London, the date he started to rent a room in Middlesex Street, how he came to rent it, whom he rented it from, the date on which he vacated it, the date on which he travelled back to Liverpool?

Does he record any of the routes the murderer took - for example, from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, or from Berner Street to Duke Street?

Does he record any of his stalking - how he went out at night but decided not to go with anyone and why, and where such encounters happened?

Does he describe his meetings with his victims and state where he met them - for example, did he meet Nichols in Whitechapel Road or Buck's Row?

Did he meet Chapman in Hanbury Street?

Did he meet Kelly in Dorset Street or somewhere else?

The lack of detail is obviously a warning sign.

[Iconoclast]

Does the writer record the date on which he travelled from Liverpool to London, the date he started to rent a room in Middlesex Street, how he came to rent it, whom he rented it from, the date on which he vacated it, the date on which he travelled back to Liverpool?

Does he record any of the routes the murderer took - for example, from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, or from Berner Street to Duke Street?

Does he record any of his stalking - how he went out at night but decided not to go with anyone and why, and where such encounters happened?

Does he describe his meetings with his victims and state where he met them - for example, did he meet Nichols in Whitechapel Road or Buck's Row?

Did he meet Chapman in Hanbury Street?

Did he meet Kelly in Dorset Street or somewhere else?

The lack of detail is obviously a warning sign.

Please tell me that you are not arguing that a hoaxer with even the vaguest awareness of the case and of Whitechapel could not have chucked-in a pile of those details if he or she wanted to?

I mean, he doesn't actually mention any of the victims by name bar a late mention of 'Kelly'. Does that mean you think it was a hoax because it shows you that the author didn't know the names of the victims?

Where does your logic draw a line here?

The author's failure to mention any of the victims by name during his actual killing spree is such a clever touch if he were not Jack. It conveys brilliantly how the Ripper utterly dehumanised his victims so much that he saw no need to name them. They did not need to have names. They just had to be surrogates of his errant wife. Personally, I think that that is an amazing touch. No wonder Bruce Robinson was so impressed, and David Canter, and others.

I think you need to take another look at the scrapbook, assuming you ever have in the first place.

[erobitha]

Does the writer record the date on which he travelled from Liverpool to London, the date he started to rent a room in Middlesex Street, how he came to rent it, whom he rented it from, the date on which he vacated it, the date on which he travelled back to Liverpool?

You are insistent on the certainty (which there is none) that all killers must document times, dates and all administrative tasks related to their actions. A killer does not document their crimes for your benefit but for theirs. Maybe he didn't need to remind himself of dates or the admin he did. He wanted to remind himself of what he felt in the moment. That is what psychologists like Dr Canter find interesting in this document.

Does he record any of the routes the murderer took - for example, from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, or from Berner Street to Duke Street?

Why would he? He was not writing a walking guide.

Does he record any of his stalking - how he went out at night but decided not to go with anyone and why, and where such encounters happened?

He describes at least one other murder (possibly two). Stalking is something you are projecting onto him. We have not found anything conclusive on the potential other murders, but it does not mean they did not happen. Prostitute murders or murders of promiscuous women may have been wrongfully classed as accidents or suicides.

Does he describe his meetings with his victims and state where he met them - for example, did he meet Nichols in Whitechapel Road or Buck's Row?

Why would that detail make one jot of difference to how he felt? Why would he need to document that?

Did he meet Chapman in Hanbury Street?

You care for that detail to be included. Why would he?

Is this what you think gets him all worked up when he reads it back?

Did he meet Kelly in Dorset Street or somewhere else?

The lack of detail is obviously a warning sign.

The lack of details as you want them is a worrying sign only for your own narrative.

The writer wrote for himself, not for you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please tell me that you are not arguing that a hoaxer with even the vaguest awareness of the case and of Whitechapel could not have chucked-in a pile of those details if he or she wanted to?

I mean, he doesn't actually mention any of the victims by name bar a late mention of 'Kelly'. Does that mean you think it was a hoax because it shows you that the author didn't know the names of the victims?

Where does your logic draw a line here?

The author's failure to mention any of the victims by name during his actual killing spree is such a clever touch if he were not Jack. It conveys brilliantly how the Ripper utterly dehumanised his victims so much that he saw no need to name them. They did not need to have names. They just had to be surrogates of his errant wife. Personally, I think that that is an amazing touch. No wonder Bruce Robinson was so impressed, and David Canter, and others.

I think you need to take another look at the scrapbook, assuming you ever have in the first place.

I don't need to take another look at the scrapbook.

If, as you insolently suggest, I had never read it, I would not have been able to make the points about it that I have made.

I thought you would be able to work that one out.

What you write about victims' names is irrelevant.

It is not the absence of the names of the victims that makes the scrapbook suspect, but the lack of detail in general - especially the routes taken by the murderer, especially when he made his exit from Mitre Square.

[Iconoclast]

The sentiments expressed by PI1, above, are a classic case of “X cannot be authentic because if I created X I’d have done it very differently”.

Of course the author of the scrapbook was writing for the benefit of recalling his feelings at the time of his killings. We can tell that because that’s what he wrote about. The absence of details we would have liked to have is not evidence that his account is inauthentic, simply that he prioritised things which we would not have restricted ourselves to. And yet none of us are serial killers so how can we speak with such arrogant confidence about something we know so little of?

No, the scrapbook doesn’t magically go away because you find things in it you think you would not have solely focused on or because it lacks the sort of detail you think you’d have included. Maybe when you start your killing spree and then start documenting it, you might look at what you’d written and think, “Crikey, that’s nothing like I imagined I’d write about”. You can’t know for certain what Jack the Ripper’s key drivers were until you have walked a Whitechapel mile in his very quiet shoes.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

You are insistent on the certainty (which there is none) that all killers must document times, dates and all administrative tasks related to their actions. A killer does not document their crimes for your benefit but for theirs.


Your argument is remarkably similar to the answers I have received when I pointed out the lack of details in Swanson's Marginalia.

I quote from the scrapbook:

'I place this now in a place where it shall be found I pray whoever should read this will find it in their heart to forgive me.'

It seems he was not writing just for himself.

Where is there any mention of any route taken by the murderer?

Couldn't he remember any?



Maybe he didn't need to remind himself of dates or the admin he did. He wanted to remind himself of what he felt in the moment. That is what psychologists like Dr Canter find interesting in this document.


Is this the same Dr Canter who found it plausible that the murders were connected with Sabbath preparation but did not explain why someone into Sabbath preparation would commit a murder not only on the Sabbath, but the most important Sabbath of the year?



Why would he? He was not writing a walking guide.


It seems he could not remember where he had been.



The writer wrote for himself, not for you.


'I place this now in a place where it shall be found I pray whoever should read this will find it in their heart to forgive me. Remind all, whoever you may be, that I was once a gentle man. May the good lord have mercy on my soul, and forgive me for all I have done.

I give my name that all know of me, so history do tell, what love can do to a gentle man born.'


He indicates the opposite of what you claim.

[erobitha]

It is only at the end of the journal he wishes for it to be found. If the writer is to be believed, it is the realisation of all that he has done wrong has caused an apparent regret. It is only then he identifies himself in any overt way.

Until that point the text is consistent with someone writing for their own enjoyment.

Dr Canter is primarily a criminal psychologist. That’s his expertise.

Your obsession with directions and admin is a reflection on you more so than the diarist.