new info on the diary

[Stephen Thomas]

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

[/I]

They didn't. They said empty tin matchbox.

Like wot a normal person wud say.

[Chris]

I think the transcripts of the Echo were added to Casebook only around six or seven years ago.

Maybrick and matchboxes aside, the fact that this detail appears in only one report of the inquest (or only one that anyone has noticed) must tell us something interesting about the way the inquest was reported. I had assumed there were a fair number of essentially independent reports of the inquests, but this suggests otherwise.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Chris,

One of my great-grandfathers was killed on the Isle of Dogs in 1885. I have found two quite detailed reports, one in the London Standard and another in The East London Advertiser, which describe an unprovoked daytime attack. But there are several other shorter reports from across the country depicting the incident as a night time pub brawl. The wording of these provincial reports is identical, so obviously from the same source, but why there should be this different interpretation of the event I don’t know. The relevant point here, though, is that one original report, or possibly a skewed précis of one of the Standard or ELA reports was copied nationwide with errors intact.

MrB

[James_J]

Hi MrB and thank you for your response!

Of course I am happy to concede that, given the discovery of the matchbox reference made by contemporary newspapers, a modern forger could have read the appropriate article and hence included the reference. However you raise another interesting question - if a modern forger was aware that the empty matchbox was referenced by the newspapers, why should he infer that Abberline was withholding information?

There are also other important considerations that must be acknowledged. We have established that if the Diary was the work of a modern forger, he/she was diligent and resourceful to the EXTREME. Why then, does the author so often fly in the face of modern, “expert” opinion ? Allow me to provide several important examples;

The Diary surfaced in 1992. Contemporary authorities on the Ripper case did not consider any of the Ripper letters as authentic. The author of the Diary claims ownership of several, including the [Dear Boss Letter [25th September]. Many also questioned whether Elizabeth Stride was killed by the murderer. Again, the author of the Diary claims ownership. Why would any modern forger, having gone to considerable lengths to acquire the correct information, deliberately contradict modern thinking - especially on issues as controversial and dubious as the Ripper correspondences?

We must also begin to consider the human aspect of the Diary. As noted before, why should any modern forger have entrusted the Diary to Michael Barrett, who by all accounts does not appear the most respected or trust worthy individual ? Furthermore, there does not appear to be any serious money involved should the Diary be considered genuine - who really stands to gain from the “hoax” ? The modern forger must also be associated closely to the Johnson family - owners of the Maybrick watch. To date, scientific analysis appears to suggest that engravings made on the back of the watch are consistent with Victorian date and are unlikely to be the work of a modern forger [see previous comments]. How do we suppose our modern forger fabricated the Maybrick watch, or is this perhaps a “lucky coincidence” ?

Other information contained within the Diary, not relating to the Ripper murders is also significant. How any modern forger selected Maybrick, someone never before associated with the Ripper crimes, as a suitable suspect is a significant challenge. As previously stated, Maybrick was a hypochondriac and visited his doctor on hundreds of occasions. He was also a prominent business man, travelling frequently to America and various regions of England. It would have taken only one record of these ventures to clash with the dates of the Ripper crimes, and our modern forgery would have been exposed. Remarkably, not one ever did! Another “lucky coincidence”?

In addition, the intricate web of illegitimate children and lovers left by James Maybrick could not have been known to a modern forger. I will again point you to the work of Shirley Harrison and Paul H. Feldman who researched this field extensively and draw reasoned, logical conclusions relating this to the Ripper mystery.

These are just some of the points which challenge to the notion of a modern hoax, and the list is not exhaustive. My own research is focused on several important features of the Maybrick case. I am currently in the process of compiling a family tree of the Maybrick & Graham dynasty, unearthing and confirming several interesting connections! Recent mention of the “Hammersmith” reference, [Diary] is also very intriguing. Any ideas or fresh insight here may prove very useful!

Best Regards & Kind wishes, James

[MrBarnett]

Hi James,

Thanks for your patience. I confess I really don’t know very much about the diary. I am just challenging what seem to me to be flaws in the arguments as put forward on this thread. For example, the suggestion that claiming Stride as a victim in some way argues against a modern forger. Surely the very opposite is true. A forger had to go one way or another, either omit any reference to Stride from the diary, thereby implying she was not a JTR victim, or included her as one of his victims. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t, no doubt. But if you look at the recent poll on the Stride killing, the majority of people on here do consider her one of JTR’s. And I don’t imagine that at any time since 1888 there was a consensus or even a significant majority against Stride as a JTR victim, so a modern forger would have been simply following the herd. Omitting her would have been the contrary action, but if the forger were himself pro-Stride it would have gone against the grain to leave her out.
Regards,

MrB

[caz]

I think the transcripts of the Echo were added to Casebook only around six or seven years ago.

Maybrick and matchboxes aside, the fact that this detail appears in only one report of the inquest (or only one that anyone has noticed) must tell us something interesting about the way the inquest was reported. I had assumed there were a fair number of essentially independent reports of the inquests, but this suggests otherwise.

Hi Chris,

Well at least after years of debate, during which the empty tin match box was held up by many as proof of a post-1987 hoax, and held up by one or two as proof that only the murderer could have written about it in his diary, it now appears it is in fact a red herring, and that anyone could have known about it from October 4th 1888 onwards - be they killer or hoaxer, ancient or modern.

A step forwards or a step backwards? I plump for the former.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

Well at least after years of debate, during which the empty tin match box was held up by many as proof of a post-1987 hoax, and held up by one or two as proof that only the murderer could have written about it in his diary, it now appears it is in fact a red herring, and that anyone could have known about it from October 4th 1888 onwards - be they killer or hoaxer, ancient or modern.

Not really, because the modern hoax argument is that the wording of the inventory is exactly duplicated in the Diary. For that matter, Maybrickites can still argue that the Echo report doesn't mention that the matchbox was made of tin.

But at least the idea that the police deliberately withheld mention of the matchbox has been laid to rest.

[pinkmoon]

Hi all,yet again we are putting the cart before the horse how on earth can we discuss content of the diary before we know where the diary has come from and who has written it.

[James_J]

Pinkmoon,

Unfortunately we are UNABLE to conclusively determine the provenience of the Diary! By your argument, we should set aside all historical and critical investigation of the Diary until we can establish such provenience? I believe it is naive and unreasonable to do so!

Indeed, the opposite is true! Without the ability to determine provenience, the next logical and responsible step, is to critically examine and evaluate the content of the Diary. Surely this is blatantly obvious ? If we can prove the Diary is a hoax or genuine, through a detailed and critical evaluation of content, why should we wait [in the faint hope that provenience is established] before drawing some reasoned, preliminary conclusions? By your argument, we would have to ignore any historical errors, facts or accuracy contained within the Diary because we have not established valid provenience?

Perhaps I have misunderstood your argument, in which case it may help if you clarify your position.

Kind regards & Best wishes, James.

[Kaz]

The echo mentioning 'an empty match-box' isn't mentioning the material its made from, its fair to say there's a purposeful omission. Is this what the diary is referring to anyway? Who's to say it wasn't something else completely?

Crime scenes were treated in a far different way to todays practices, exactly what was found and recorded no one really knows, maybe they just missed it, they missed the letters on the wall.... it just seems a massive assumption to pretend to know exactly what was meant and exactly what happened in the intervening years to various finds.

[Kaz]

Perhaps I have misunderstood your argument, in which case it may help if you clarify your position.

Clarity isn't pm's strong point...

[pinkmoon]

Pinkmoon,

Unfortunately we are UNABLE to conclusively determine the provenience of the Diary! By your argument, we should set aside all historical and critical investigation of the Diary until we can establish such provenience? I believe it is naive and unreasonable to do so!

Indeed, the opposite is true! Without the ability to determine provenience, the next logical and responsible step, is to critically examine and evaluate the content of the Diary. Surely this is blatantly obvious ? If we can prove the Diary is a hoax or genuine, through a detailed and critical evaluation of content, why should we wait [in the faint hope that provenience is established] before drawing some reasoned, preliminary conclusions? By your argument, we would have to ignore any historical errors, facts or accuracy contained within the Diary because we have not established valid provenience?

Perhaps I have misunderstood your argument, in which case it may help if you clarify your position.

Kind regards & Best wishes, James.

My dear James,If this diary was genuine then why all the lies about its history.I've read Mr Feldmans the final chapter and Shirley Harrison's diary book and I can't see any reason for lying.

[MayBea]

Recent mention of the “Hammersmith” reference, [Diary] is also very intriguing. Any ideas or fresh insight here may prove very useful!

Best Regards & Kind wishes, James

Right now, I would say that Christopher T. George offered the best suggestion--that Hammersmith is really Matilda Briggs. She was familiar with the Maybricks and may have once been engaged to James. Chris points out the Diarist may have been referring to one of the drives in Sefton Park where she lived. http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/11926.html


Keeping with the literary references, Hammersmith is RLS's character in The Suicide Club where Colonel Geraldine went by the alias Major Hammersmith.
Mrs. Briggs was married to Thomas Charles Briggs. Captain Briggs received the honorary title of Major in 1880. http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issu...s/345/page.pdf

[Livia]

My dear James,If this diary was genuine then why all the lies about its history.I've read Mr Feldmans the final chapter and Shirley Harrison's diary book and I can't see any reason for lying.

You can't? How about 14 years (maximum) sentence on
conviction of handling stolen property? Of course, selling
the stolen property in question for the measly amount of
£1 would render prosecution unlikely.


MayBea, Mrs Briggs was Maybrick's junior by 12 years, therefore,
not "old" in relation to Maybrick. The Briggs' marriage didn't last
long, but long enough to produce two daughters, Constance Esther
Frances b 18 Nov 1872, m 16 Aug 1893 to Walter Cubitt Crawshay
and Nora Louise b 29 May 1874, m 4 Mar 1909 (subsequently
divorced).

[pinkmoon]

You can't? How about 14 years (maximum) sentence on
conviction of handling stolen property? Of course, selling
the stolen property in question for the measly amount of
£1 would render prosecution unlikely.


MayBea, Mrs Briggs was Maybrick's junior by 12 years, therefore,
not "old" in relation to Maybrick. The Briggs' marriage didn't last
long, but long enough to produce two daughters, Constance Esther
Frances b 18 Nov 1872, m 16 Aug 1893 to Walter Cubitt Crawshay
and Nora Louise b 29 May 1874, m 4 Mar 1909 (subsequently
divorced).

The point I'm trying to make is that if the diary was genuine and had been in Mrs Barrett s family why all the lies makes no sense p.s merry Christmas xxxxxxxxxxxx