new info on the diary

[Cogidubnus]

Hi GUT

Can't say I'm any sort of expert on Victorian matches, but I do know that Vestas (ie Non safety matches or "strike anywheres") often came in tins - and different manufacturors had slightly different shaped tins

http://www.antiques-atlas.com/antiqu..._tin/ac001a239

In addition of course, the better-off carried their Vestas in a Vesta Case

http://www.ebay.co.uk/bhp/vintage-vesta-case

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

G'Day All

Can someone help a Newbie to the posts?

How common was it that matches came in tins in 1888. Today of course they are either in books or Boxes.

Was the tin the norm, I presume it must have been but can find no evidence.

Thanks in advance

GUT

[Amanda Sumner]

Ah, I did not think of the search for a match to look at his handiwork, that is far more probable, but I still can't see him putting it back in the pocket after discovering the matchbox was empty.
The cotton is a bit of a puzzle. I can't see the Ripper having the time to leave clues but it is possible, if you believe that Maybrick is the fiend. I think that, maybe, the cotton was stored there because the box was empty. These women seemed to keep everything they owned upon their person...
Indeed, there must have been a reason for the mention of the cotton and, as you say, it was then lost before the police inventory.

[MayBea]

No, I was not aware that it was stated in one report that the matchbox contained cotton. It could be wrongly reported, but if true then the diary would not have said 'empty', which further suggests that the diarist got his sources from reports written at the time...It should be reverently treated as a work of art!

The matchbox would have been empty prior to Maybrick planting the cotton. Hense, it says I left a clue. A modern or old forger would have to have read the London Times article if he meant the cotton when referring to the clue. Not impossible either way.

Although, I still can't see how the mention of cotton could be a mistake, or any reason for it to be there, other than as a cotton merchant's clue, unless it was to keep the matches dry.

Finally, I would guess the search for a match was for the purpose of one last look to admire his 'handywork'. As for the Diary being teated with reverence, at least as a work of art, you can say that again. It might even bring the alleged forger out of hiding to take credit.

[Amanda Sumner]

I totally agree with you jason_c.
However, it has just occurred to me, and probably been discussed before, but is there any handwriting of Maybrick's to compare the handwriting in the diary? This has been obviously looked into but I just wondered what conclusions there were.
If this is a fake,and I believe it is, then there must have been quite a few involved in the hoax. I'm surprised no one else has come forward to sell their story as the initial motive to do it must have been money.

[jason_c]

To me the Diary is almost certainly a fake. Firstly, as has been stated previously the provenance of the Diary is dubious. Any story about receiving such a controversial item from a recently deceased person should ring alarm bells. Also, the paper the Diary is written on. Unused Victorian paper is difficult to come by. This is where forgers often fall down. They are forced to use paper of a different time period, or paper that was meant for a different use. The Diary was originally a picture album.

The above does not necessarily prove its a fake. However, it points strongly in that direction. Finally, its a strange coincidence that the biggest money making serial killer of all time should also leave a no holds barred diary. Why didn't anyone happen to find a diary of a long forgotten serial killer instead?

[Amanda Sumner]

No, I was not aware that it was stated in one report that the matchbox contained cotton. It could be wrongly reported, but if true then the diary would not have said 'empty', which further suggests that the diarist got his sources from reports written at the time.
To suggest that the police withheld the information about the tin matchbox is simply not true, is it, so the diary, in theory, could have been written anytime from late 1888 onwards.
However, it is strange for anyone to go to such great lengths and clever. It should be reverently treated as a work of art!

[Amanda Sumner]

BTW, just to make things a little clearer for my sake, is your post arguing against Old Hoax theory or against the Diary being genuine, or both?

Hi, MayBea,
Well, if I say I believe the diary is a modern hoax then I must be arguing against the old hoax and genuine theory.
If the diary was written by Maybrick or, indeed, any diary written by the Ripper then I can't see him writing an inventory of items carried on his victim's person! The only reason he would have been aware of a matchbox, empty or otherwise, is if he had emptied the pockets and if his only interest in whether a matchbox had matches in it would have been to light one to see what he was doing. The notion of him planning to mutilate a body with one hand while holding a match is ludicrous unless one went into the two person theory where someone held the match while someone else did the mutilations. Neither can I imagine the perpetrator putting it carefully back into the pocket, he would have just thrown it to the ground, empty or not.
In other words a genuine Ripper diary would not have mentioned the matchbox at all in my opinion. Bearing in mind the very short time between the victim allegedly seen alive and then found dead, the Ripper simply did not have time to mess about.
I'm also against the old hoax/genuine theory based on the fact of its dubious history. Anything shrouded in mystery should be treated with suspicion. Taking into consideration the opinion that the language is not right either, suggests that it was written much later.

[MayBea]

According to this report though, the [empty] matchbox was found in her pocket...so the Ripper, very obligingly, carefully put it back ...

Are you aware, Amanda, that the 'empty' matchbox was also initially reported to contain cotton?
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881001.html
One assumes the cotton was lost before the police inventory was made.

[MayBea]

... It just does not ring true, so, based on that and other things, I think the diary is a modern hoax, probably written before the late 1980's.

Thanks Amanda for your post. I'll agree that Modern Hoax is really the only sustainable hoax theory. Unless there is a time-traveling, amateur Ripperologist!

BTW, just to make things a little clearer for my sake, is your post arguing against Old Hoax theory or against the Diary being genuine, or both?

[Amanda Sumner]

If the police held back the tin match box, empty, why did the Echo of 4 October mention it:

THE MURDER DISCOVERED

Inspector Edward Collard, of the City of London Police, was next examined. He said - At five minutes before two on Sunday last I received information at Bishopsgate Police-station that a woman had been murdered in Mitre-square. After dispatching the intelligence to headquarters and to Dr. Gordon Brown, I proceeded to the Square. I there found Dr. Sequeira, several police officers and a body of a woman lying in the north-west corner of the Square. The body was not touched until the arrival of Dr. Gordon Brown. He, however, arrived shortly after I got there. The medical gentleman examined the body, and Sergeant Jones afterwards picked up , on the left side of the deceased three small black boot buttons, a small metal button, a metal thimble and a small mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. The body was afterwards removed to the mortuary. There was no money in her pockets. There was some tea and sugar, a piece of flannel, some soap, a cigarette case, and an empty match-box in her pocket. The portion of an apron (produced) was what deceased was wearing, and corresponds with the piece of apron which has been found in Goulston-street. Chief Detective McWilliams arrived at Mitre-square soon after the murder was discovered. He was accompanied by a number of detectives, and they made inquiries at the various lodging-houses in Spitalfields, and several men were stopped and searched in the street, but without any satisfactory result. I have a house-to-house inquiry made in the vicinity of Mitre-square (continued witness) to see if we could find any person who heard or saw anything unusual in the square that night.

As a newbie, my observations may be a little naive, but I've read all these posts with interest and much has been made of the empty match box. Chris raised the point that in the very short time the Ripper had to do his ghastly deeds, somehow he found the time to go through her things as well. This seems very unlikely and even less likely, to me, that he noticed it was empty too. According to this report though, the matchbox was found in her pocket...so the Ripper, very obligingly, carefully put it back after discovering that there was nothing it! It just does not ring true, so, based on that and other things, I think the diary is a modern hoax, probably written before the late 1980's.

[MayBea]

Maybe the writer used modern language because he knew Maybrick spent a lot of time immersed in the future dominant culture where the people were speeking in a language 'ahead' of its time because the future of language was theirs.

Don't you think, in this sense, the Diary or Diarist got it right?

Although he doubts authenticity, Beadle is right in concluding that the Diary helped promote the Ripper field. I believe the creators of the two main Ripper sites were inspired by the Diary or the Diary book.

[Sam Flynn]

Are you agreeing with William Beadle that the Diary should read more like Dickens?

As (really bad) fiction, but hardly Dickens. I've little doubt that the Maybrick "diary" was the product of an indifferently-educated, unimaginative and untalented writer. Or more than one of that ilk.

Many thanks for the link, MayBea. I'm a massive fan of Bill Beadle's work, and I'd not seen that essay before.

[MayBea]

...Suffice to say, I find the language of the "diary" point to a certain type of hoaxer, and that some phrases in particular strongly suggest a composition date no earlier than the 1960s, more probably the 1970s or 80s.

Are you agreeing with William Beadle that the Diary should read more like Dickens?
http://www.jamesmaybrick.org/pdf%20f...20article).pdf

[MayBea]

My dear James,IF the diary was in Mrs Barretts family why all the lies.Surely to God anybody with any sense would know the potential value of this historical document so there would be no need at all to lie.

Although it passed through many hands no one seemingly read it prior to Anne Graham. http://www.jamesmaybrick.org/pdf%20f...20article).pdf

According to this, Anne Graham was 'seemingly' the first and only one in her family to read it (likely not until the 80s when she reportedly took possession of it). Can anyone really say how one person should have reacted to it?