new info on the diary

[James_J]

I acknowledge and accept that graphology is not a dependable form of evidence. The graphologist who examined the Diary in 1992 was Hannah Koren. She is a forensic document analyst for a security department of the Israeli Government and has presented evidence in many fraud trials throughout Europe. I included her professional opinion of the Diary due to her extensive experience with document related cases and inquiries.

Best Regards, James

[caz]

Hello (again) James.

"I cannot understand how a destitute prostitute, who had just pawned her boyfriend's boots that very morning . . ."

Of course, the date on the "Kelly" ticket read Friday night.

Cheers.
LC

How does a 'date' read Friday 'night', Lynn?

Could the boots have been pawned very late on Friday night, or very early on Saturday morning, resulting in Friday's date being put on the ticket when it was close enough not to make any difference?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If I may note one other point related to the murder of Catharine Eddowe's. The report containing Catharine Eddowe's possessions named a "Red Leather Cigarette Case." I cannot understand how a destitute prostitute, who had just pawned her boyfriend's boots that very morning, would own a leather cigarette case with metal fittings.

According to Mrs Hogg, a Virginia brothel-keeper, who testified at Florence Maybrick's trial, James frequented her brothel when he arrived in the USA. Mrs Hogg stated that he kept his arsenic "in a cigarette case."

Kind regards, James.

Hi James,

Well the diary author certainly associates the matchbox with the cigarette case when trying out his doggerel, which makes perfect sense if he sees them both as belonging to Sir Jim. He also makes a pun on the word 'strike', as in striking another whore or another match, and the matches would have been struck to light the cigarettes or to light the murder scene (if there were any left).

The poetry may be awful, but there's a lot going on in just a few short lines.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Thank you for you warm welcome!

Your questions is perfectly reasonable and welcome! Undoubtedly this a case of confusion on behalf of the author. It is important to remember that the Ripper/Author could not have had any insight into the specific co-ordination of the police investigation. He was privy to the same information as the general public and had to surmise the actions of Scotland Yard, and City of London forces, based solely on newspaper and tabloid coverage. Inspector Abberline coordinated the ground level inquiries and therefore was perceived as heading the Ripper investigation. The contemporary newspapers most certainly gave him top billing.



Best Regards, James.

Hi JamesJ,

Nice to see some new interest in the 'Diary' - pity you weren't posting a few years ago, when there were some real fireworks popping off!

Anyway - it's important also to remember that James Maybrick's brother, Michael Maybrick a.k.a. Stephen Adams the highly popular composer, was a high-ranking Freemason, as were many high-ranking police officers at the time. Pure supposition on my part, of course, but if the 'Diary' is an old forgery, then it is perhaps not beyond the realms of possibility that Michael Maybrick had an input, and was able to provide otherwise 'secret' (or unpublished) details. Just a thought.

Graham

[lynn cates]

Friday

Hello (again) James.

"I cannot understand how a destitute prostitute, who had just pawned her boyfriend's boots that very morning . . ."

Of course, the date on the "Kelly" ticket read Friday night.

Cheers.
LC

[bigjon]

In response to the final comment, made by Magpie, do you care to elaborate ? Graphology has been included and exhibited in numerous legal proceedings and professional consultancies. While I do accept that there is debate concerning the accuracy of graphology, the inclusion of yet another professional opinion, in favor of the diary, must be included.

Care to name one?

Forensic document examination is a science that is used in legal proceedings, but you will by hard pressed to find a conviction based solely on it. Graphology is akin to fortune telling and is not supported by scientific evidence.

You will also be hard pressed to find a Forensic Document Examiner state categorically that a piece of writing is conclusive proof - they will normally state that it is their opinion and that it is likely, but not definite.

[lynn cates]

Swanson

Hello James. Thanks.

Makes one wonder how much the public knew about Swanson and his role in the case?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

In reply to Caz; Firstly thank you for the response!

Your raise some very interesting questions. I gather that you presume the Diary was an old forgery and are perhaps insinuating that police officials at the time may have spread private details of the case? However, if these details were as commonly known as you suggest, they would have undoubtedly appeared in the countless books, memoirs, and dissertations on the Ripper released prior to 1987.

Hi James,

I have absolutely no doubt that certain inside details would have been shared with trusted friends and associates beyond the force. Such things happen. I am not, however, suggesting for one moment that they were 'commonly' known prior to 1987. It only needed one wag with inside knowledge to come up with the idea of using it for a ripper 'confession'. Too many people with the same knowledge and there would have been a lot less fun in such a venture.

Love,

Caz
X

[James_J]

Great explanation Caz.

[caz]

Unless you can suggest an alternative reason why the author would have placed the adjective after the verb, it only bolsters my belief that s/he was copying the wording of the police inventory.

To place the adjective after the noun in any other context is a thing very unusual. Maybe the Diary was written by Hercule Poirot?

Not remotely unusual when writing doggerel though, Chris. And as you can see from the line in context below, the diary author is trying out his rotten rhymes in rough first, with the verb 'was' implied, not written until the second, finished version, making perfect sense of the adjective appearing after the noun. He does the same thing with (the) first whore (was) no good:

Sir Jim,
tin match box empty
cigarette case (crossed out)
make haste (crossed out)
my shiny knife (crossed out)
the whores knife (crossed out)
first whore no good

One whore no good
decided Sir Jim strike another.
I showed no fright and indeed no light,
damn it, the tin box was empty

I very much doubt he copied 1 Whore, no good from anywhere.

Love,

Caz
X

[James_J]

If I may note one other point related to the murder of Catharine Eddowe's. The report containing Catharine Eddowe's possessions named a "Red Leather Cigarette Case." I cannot understand how a destitute prostitute, who had just pawned her boyfriend's boots that very morning, would own a leather cigarette case with metal fittings.

According to Mrs Hogg, a Virginia brothel-keeper, who testified at Florence Maybrick's trial, James frequented her brothel when he arrived in the USA. Mrs Hogg stated that he kept his arsenic "in a cigarette case."

Kind regards, James.

[James_J]

In reply to Caz; Firstly thank you for the response!

Your raise some very interesting questions. I gather that you presume the Diary was an old forgery and are perhaps insinuating that police officials at the time may have spread private details of the case? However, if these details were as commonly known as you suggest, they would have undoubtedly appeared in the countless books, memoirs, and dissertations on the Ripper released prior to 1987.

In addition, none of these proposals make James Maybrick an easier suspect for a would-be forger. Indeed, the theory of an old forgery is faced with more inescapable problems than the notion of a modern hoax. I have discussed many of these problems in previous posts. Feel free to read through some of my ideas and raise any further doubts you may hold.

Kind Regards, James.

[caz]

Well, when it comes down to it there are two hypotheses, aren't there?

Either the killer - in that pitch-black corner of Mitre Square, with no time to spare at all - conducted a very detailed search of Eddowes's possessions and ascertained that the matchbox was empty, and by pure chance hit on precisely the same wording that appears in the police inventory, which James J argues it would have been impossible for the killer to have seen.

Or the phrase was simply copied out of a modern Ripper book.

Can anyone say with a straight face that the first of those options is more likely?

How about three, Chris?

Is there no chance that this empty matchbox could have belonged to the killer, but found its way into the victim's possessions? It seems an odd little item for the police to want kept out of the papers unless it was something they believed the killer would know about, and would possibly seek to retrieve later, if its absence from the papers implied he had left it at the scene.

What do think was the purpose of holding it back from every press report, if the killer was not expected to know a thing about it?

Love,

Caz
X

[James_J]

Thank you for you warm welcome!

Your questions is perfectly reasonable and welcome! Undoubtedly this a case of confusion on behalf of the author. It is important to remember that the Ripper/Author could not have had any insight into the specific co-ordination of the police investigation. He was privy to the same information as the general public and had to surmise the actions of Scotland Yard, and City of London forces, based solely on newspaper and tabloid coverage. Inspector Abberline coordinated the ground level inquiries and therefore was perceived as heading the Ripper investigation. The contemporary newspapers most certainly gave him top billing.

This appears to work in favor of the Diary. As we have already concluded, a modern forger would have demonstrated the utmost diligence and attention to detail in order to construct the Diary. Such an obvious error in light of current knowledge, contradicts the profile of the suspected forger. In my opinion, the author's assumption that Abberline was heading the investigation, demonstrates that the Diary was written at the times of the Ripper crimes.

Best Regards, James.

[caz]

How do you suppose that a forger could have possibly obtained the adequate knowledge of the Ripper case, to include references such as the empty tin matchbox - [found at with the body of Catharine Eddowes.] These facts were known ONLY by police officials & the Ripper. They were not publicly known before 1987. There is NO conceivable way that the Diary is the work of an old forger. The dates do not permit that conclusion.

Hi James,

Police officials liked to talk about the case. Police officials hinted at stuff to their cronies. Police officials - cough, Macnaghten, cough - shared inside information with their friends, associates and relatives. The gentlemen's clubs must have fairly buzzed with ripper goss for months if not years. Whatever new information emerged from the files in the late 1980s, was put into those files a hundred years earlier by real human beings and was not new information at all, merely information that was not yet available to the wider public.

So of course there is a conceivable way that one or more of those with access to inside information decided to use it for a spoof Jack the Ripper diary, making James Maybrick the most evil man of 1888, just as his unfortunate widow Florie was accused of being the most evil woman of 1889.

Far less conceivable would have been Mike Barrett flicking through a ripper book in the late 1980s, homing in on the previously unpublished 1 Tin Match Box, empty reference, thanking his lucky stars for this wonderful nugget of 'new' information, then choosing to copy it into the diary thus:

Sir Jim,
tin match box empty
cigarette case (crossed out)
make haste (crossed out)
my shiny knife (crossed out)
the whores knife (crossed out)
first whore no good

One whore no good
decided Sir Jim strike another.
I showed no fright and indeed no light,
damn it, the tin box was empty

Love,

Caz
X