new info on the diary

[pinkmoon]

Anybody know when the new information discoverd about the diarys history is going to be released to us ?

[Kaz]

Pink, you give the impression your mind is already made up about the origins of the diary, forged and then somehow planted in the maybricks home. Even if I came forward with a sign confession from James maybrick in the diarys hand you'd still question it, no?

[pinkmoon]

Pink, you give the impression your mind is already made up about the origins of the diary, forged and then somehow planted in the maybricks home. Even if I came forward with a sign confession from James maybrick in the diarys hand you'd still question it, no?

Hi kaz,when I first read the book written by Shirley Harrison nearly twenty years ago I actually thought there was a chance of Maybrick been our killer.When Mr Barrett started saying he had forged the diary and it was all a huge con I decided that was that end of story.A few years later I stumbled upon Mr Barrett and I got to know him quite well and I did find him a charming good old fashioned liverpudllian who did have a chronic drink problem though.Meeting Mr Barrett when he was sober lead me to the conclusion he was not capable of forging anything and nobody with any sense would get him involved in any sort of scam let alone use him as a frontman.I firmly believe via my conversations with Mr Barrett that his connection with the diary came via his connection with the saddlers pub where he spent most of his time and came across the workmen who worked on battlecrease house.I now firmly believe that the diary was produced during Florence maybricks trial by whom I do not know for what purpose maybe to generate some money for someone it was never unleashed after the trial and thus resided for years in battlecrease and found its way to Mr Barrett.Hand on heart I would love it to be genuine and to have an answer to this mystery however it is not .

[James_J]

Hello. I am also extremely interested in the Diary and have been conducting my own research in regards to the current situation and opinion of the Maybrick case. I begin by stating plainly that I believe the Diary is genuine & can provide evidence which I believe validates and supports my position.

Firstly, it has to be remembered that no historian to this day can categorically prove the Diary is a hoax. I appreciate and understand that the Maybrick diary has been surrounded by a wealth of misinformation and dishonesty from the various parties involved over the years and, understandably, many historians have moved onto greener pastures. However, the fact remains that the Diary is yet to shaken. A number of important facts appear to have been forgotten ;

One of the strongest factors that support the authenticity of the Maybrick Diary are the historical facts included in regard to the canonical victims. Several references within the Diary were not publicly known before 1984 and not published until 1987. I draw specific attention to the tin matchbox found with the body of Catharine Eddowes - evidence which was deliberately withheld from the public sphere. Further off-hand references to obscure private details of the case also strengthen the historical integrity of the Diary. These facts are critical. They rule out the possibly of an antiquated forgery which has been commonly & recently suggested. The Diary is either genuine or a modern forgery. I believe the probability of a modern forgery is weak.

My own research has placed me in contact with several important figures in the initial investigation of the Diary. Author Shirley Harrison maintains that the Diary is genuine and has disclosed that it is currently held at a secured bank in London. Kieth Skinner also provided helpful information which pointed me in the direction of several other Maybrick related publications. However, it was Robert Smith, (Smith Literary Agency) which has provided the most current information about the Diary. In correspondence dated 4/12/13, R. Smith detailed his recent efforts to establish the provenience of the Diary. Believing that the conclusions drawn by Paul H. Feldmen (The Final Chapter, 1997) - stating that the Diary originated through Anne E. Graham, R. Smith investigated Rhodes Electrics, the Liverpool based company contracted at Battlecrease Mansion in 1988/89. R. Smith asserts that, based on the statements given by the electricians, the Maybrick Diary was taken from Battlecrease. Kieth Skinner supported this view in 2007.

To date, this appears the most recent and relevant information in relation to the Diary. I believe that efforts to establish the provenience of the Maybrick journal should now be focused on the work conducted at Battlecrease Mansion from 1988-89 and the statements of the individuals involved. Conclusive evidence or testimony that the Diary was found and removed from Battlecrease may provide more stable historical ground.

I understand that many of my arguments are not based from "recent discoveries" but I believe that there are many outstanding questions raised by the Diary which have yet to be critically and responsibly evaluated. Any current conclusion that asserts the Diary is a hoax is both ignorant of the evidence and historically naive. I would appreciate any responses and am happy to theorize with both believers and critics of the Diary. I will continue my research and post any new evidence here without delay!

Best regards! JJ

[pinkmoon]

Hello. I am also extremely interested in the Diary and have been conducting my own research in regards to the current situation and opinion of the Maybrick case. I begin by stating plainly that I believe the Diary is genuine & can provide evidence which I believe validates and supports my position.

Firstly, it has to be remembered that no historian to this day can categorically prove the Diary is a hoax. I appreciate and understand that the Maybrick diary has been surrounded by a wealth of misinformation and dishonesty from the various parties involved over the years and, understandably, many historians have moved onto greener pastures. However, the fact remains that the Diary is yet to shaken. A number of important facts appear to have been forgotten ;

One of the strongest factors that support the authenticity of the Maybrick Diary are the historical facts included in regard to the canonical victims. Several references within the Diary were not publicly known before 1984 and not published until 1987. I draw specific attention to the tin matchbox found with the body of Catharine Eddowes - evidence which was deliberately withheld from the public sphere. Further off-hand references to obscure private details of the case also strengthen the historical integrity of the Diary. These facts are critical. They rule out the possibly of an antiquated forgery which has been commonly & recently suggested. The Diary is either genuine or a modern forgery. I believe the probability of a modern forgery is weak.

My own research has placed me in contact with several important figures in the initial investigation of the Diary. Author Shirley Harrison maintains that the Diary is genuine and has disclosed that it is currently held at a secured bank in London. Kieth Skinner also provided helpful information which pointed me in the direction of several other Maybrick related publications. However, it was Robert Smith, (Smith Literary Agency) which has provided the most current information about the Diary. In correspondence dated 4/12/13, R. Smith detailed his recent efforts to establish the provenience of the Diary. Believing that the conclusions drawn by Paul H. Feldmen (The Final Chapter, 1997) - stating that the Diary originated through Anne E. Graham, R. Smith investigated Rhodes Electrics, the Liverpool based company contracted at Battlecrease Mansion in 1988/89. R. Smith asserts that, based on the statements given by the electricians, the Maybrick Diary was taken from Battlecrease. Kieth Skinner supported this view in 2007.

To date, this appears the most recent and relevant information in relation to the Diary. I believe that efforts to establish the provenience of the Maybrick journal should now be focused on the work conducted at Battlecrease Mansion from 1988-89 and the statements of the individuals involved. Conclusive evidence or testimony that the Diary was found and removed from Battlecrease may provide more stable historical ground.

I understand that many of my arguments are not based from "recent discoveries" but I believe that there are many outstanding questions raised by the Diary which have yet to be critically and responsibly evaluated. Any current conclusion that asserts the Diary is a hoax is both ignorant of the evidence and historically naive. I would appreciate any responses and am happy to theorize with both believers and critics of the Diary. I will continue my research and post any new evidence here without delay!

Best regards! JJ

Good evening ,the problem that most people have with the diary is the amount of lies told about its history.It's looking like it was stolen from battlecrease which I think a lot of people me included decided a long time ago.Whatever we are told now about the diary will probley not be believed because of all the lies told from day one.

[James_J]

Unfortunately you are correct & I have to agree. Too many lies have been told by those involved with the Diary and the validity of the document appears to have been forgotten. However, I do believe that the Diary is worth researching and that historians have a duty to battle for greater awareness and acknowledgment of one fact - the Diary has yet to be proven as a forgery.

Your comment does raise one important question. I am curious as to why Paul H. Feldmen was inclined to believe that the Diary had come from Anne E. Graham when he had previously been on the trial of the electricians ? Many seem to devalue his decision despite showing high regard for his research and academic standards. Why did an historically sound researcher believe Anne E. Graham ? Any theories as to his reasoning may be useful !

[MayBea]

Yes, Pinkmoon, I too believe it's old but wonder how you can believe it's old and fake. If it was written during the trial, how to explain the reference to the empty matchbox?

An insider or a lucky reference to a Josh Billings poem?

http://books.google.ca/books?id=pkM1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=josh+billings+match+box+empty&source=bl&ots=ZuiZ_Iya0s&sig=68a2_fzWKIZYPuNRellrVG4dLIg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HIKsUpqfKOXL2QXo-YHICA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=josh%20billings%20match%20box%20empty&f=false

...
Several references within the Diary were not publicly known before 1984 and not published until 1987. I draw specific attention to the tin matchbox found with the body of Catharine Eddowes - evidence which was deliberately withheld from the public sphere. ... JJ

[James_J]

The possibility of an antiquated forgery is extremely thin, if not impossible. References made by the author of the Diary were not publicly known before 1984 & not published until 1987. There is no conceivable means by which a forger, operating at or around the time of the Ripper crimes, could have gained sufficient knowledge of the case to include references such as the empty tin matchbox. It is either genuine or a modern forgery.

[pinkmoon]

Unfortunately you are correct & I have to agree. Too many lies have been told by those involved with the Diary and the validity of the document appears to have been forgotten. However, I do believe that the Diary is worth researching and that historians have a duty to battle for greater awareness and acknowledgment of one fact - the Diary has yet to be proven as a forgery.

Your comment does raise one important question. I am curious as to why Paul H. Feldmen was inclined to believe that the Diary had come from Anne E. Graham when he had previously been on the trial of the electricians ? Many seem to devalue his decision despite showing high regard for his research and academic standards. Why did an historically sound researcher believe Anne E. Graham ? Any theories as to his reasoning may be useful !

Evening sir,This whole diary saga takes a bit of a twist when you meet Mike Barrett a few times like I have.The impression I have formed over the past few years is that Mr Barrett is incapable of forging anything also I cannot think of a person alive on this small planet of ours who would involve Mr Barrett in any scam I personally wouldn't send him to the corner shop for a newspaper.I think the lies that have been told about Mr Barrett s possession of the diary have been for him to have ownership and kop for the money.If the diary was stolen from battlecrease which I believe is what happend then obviously the owner of battlecrease a Mr dodds would be legally entitled to any money generated from the diary hence the lies and **** and bull stories.

[James_J]

I appreciate your insight! Unfortunately I have never met Michael Barrett, but from the various sources I have come across in the course of my research, I am not of the opinion that Mike Barrett could have forged the Diary. I state again my personal belief that the Diary is genuine! The real question that now faces proponents of the Diary is whether it was taken from Battlecrease Mansion, or alternatively, descended from Anne Graham. May I ask whether you are still in contact with Mike Barrett? Did he disclose any personal assertion as to the origin of the Diary?

Best Regards, James.

[pinkmoon]

I appreciate your insight! Unfortunately I have never met Michael Barrett, but from the various sources I have come across in the course of my research, I am not of the opinion that Mike Barrett could have forged the Diary. I state again my personal belief that the Diary is genuine! The real question that now faces proponents of the Diary is whether it was taken from Battlecrease Mansion, or alternatively, descended from Anne Graham. May I ask whether you are still in contact with Mike Barrett? Did he disclose any personal assertion as to the origin of the Diary?

Best Regards, James.

Hi James,no I'm not and yes he did

[James_J]

Is it possible for you share Michael Barrett's views on the Diary?

[pinkmoon]

Is it possible for you share Michael Barrett's views on the Diary?

Hi James,nothing that he hasn't told anyone else and some of the things would probley offend you I formed the opinion that he had pinched it.

[James_J]

Thank you for your help! I am not sure what value Michael Barrett's views on the Diary may be today considering what is currently known about the Diary. I hope to make contact with Rhodes Electrics over the coming weeks and attempt to establish more conclusive evidence that the Diary was taken from Battlecrease. However, no answer has been given to my previous question. How was it, that Paul H. Feldman came to the conclusion that the Diary was passed down through Anne Graham despite making efforts to verify rumors that the Diary had been stolen from Battlecrease ?

[pinkmoon]

Thank you for your help! I am not sure what value Michael Barrett's views on the Diary may be today considering what is currently known about the Diary. I hope to make contact with Rhodes Electrics over the coming weeks and attempt to establish more conclusive evidence that the Diary was taken from Battlecrease. However, no answer has been given to my previous question. How was it, that Paul H. Feldman came to the conclusion that the Diary was passed down through Anne Graham despite making efforts to verify rumors that the Diary had been stolen from Battlecrease ?

My dear James,for any one to make any money from this diary ownership has to proved .Let say IF diary is stolen from battlecrease the owner of the diary is going to be the owner of battlecrease.By having this story of Tony giving diary to Mr Barrett and then dying it gives Mr Barrett ownership.The sad thing about all of this is that if the people involved in this had told the TRUTH from day one a lot more people me included would be treating James Maybrick as a serious suspect also they would have made a lot more money.