new info on the diary

[Chris]

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?

[James_J]

Great to have some considered and informed responses! Your points are certainly valid Chris and you raise some interesting questions. However, I may be able to defend the author of the Diary from some of your criticism.

It is important to consider what other information the author included about the murder of Catharine Eddowes. The author writes;
"The thrill she gave me was unlike the others, I cut deep. Her nose annoyed me so I cut it off, had a go at her eyes, left my mark, could not get the bitches head off. I believe now it is impossible to do so. The whore never screamed. I took all I could away with me."

The post-mortem of Catharine Eddowes was conducted by Dr. Frederick Brown. According to Dr. Brown the "tip of her nose was quite detached. The face was very much mutilated. There was a cut about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid, dividing the structure completely through...the right eyelid was cut into through to about half an inch...There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half."

The description given by Dr. Brown corresponds perfectly with the Author of the Diary. Despite the "pitch-black" environment, the Ripper had enough time and light to make distinct marks on the victims face, delicately cut the eyelids, detach her nose & mutilate her abdomen. Your assertion that the Ripper could not have taken note of an empty tin matchbox appears rather dubious. Nor is it unreasonable to assume that such an item may have fallen from the victims clothing at some point during the mutilation. In addition, the fact that the author of the Diary used the same wording as the police report surely bolsters historical integrity ?

We must also consider how any modern forger would select Maybrick as a suitable suspect. He was never associated with the Ripper crimes before the Diary was brought to public attention. He presents considerable challenges for a would-be forger. These include;

1. Maybrick was a hypochondriac. His medical records - [which were thoroughly examined by Paul H. Feldman & his research team] were extensive. He visited his Doctor hundreds of times and yet, not one of his medical appointments clash with the known dates of the Ripper murders. A forger would not only have to select, locate and appropriate these rare medical documents - but also have immense luck that Maybrick was not accounted for on the dates of the murders.

2. The Maybrick watch is another important consideration. Although this thread has focused on the Diary, the Maybrick watch is coming into play. How could any forger hope, that a genuine Victorian Verity watch could emerge and support Maybrick as a credible suspect. Your assumption may be that both items forged by the same individual. Paul H. Feldman, Shirley Harrison nor Kieth Skinner could find any plausible theory connecting the owner of the Diary and Albert Johnson [the owner of the watch]. Dr Turgoose - [MA PHD of the Corrosion and Protection Centre] examined the watch in 1993 using an electron microscope. His report stated; "The wear apparent on many of the engravings, evidenced by the rounded edges of the markings and the "polishing out" in places would indicate a substantial age for the engravings." [17.8.93]. In his professional opinion a forger would not have been able to replicate the scratches on the watch. This is an important point that is directly relevant to the authenticity of the Diary and validates the watch as supporting evidence.

3. A forger would also have been extremely lucky that the human element of history supported Maybrick's credibility as a suspect. The extensive tree of illegitimate lovers and children uncovered a host of corrupted certificates & official documents directly attributed to Maybrick. Persistent rumors regarding James Maybrick have continued throughout the generations of his descendants. In an interview with P. Feldman, Janice Roughton stated; "I had always known that there was something sinister in this family..and it has always led me back to James." Margaret Minetta Maybrick claimed, "It's a secret and its a terrible secret and I would never tell you and if you ever got to know you would wish that you hadn't." I appreciate that these may not be the strongest or most reliable sources, but they prove that any modern forger was more fortunate and lucky than it is reasonable to ever accept.

Indeed these are just some of the major points that work in favor of the Diary. If the Diary is a modern forgery, can you explain the following questions ? ;

1. How did the forger know that James Mayrbick was indeed away from home at Christmas 1888?
2. How did the forger know that there were two, not three, brass rings missing from the body of Annie Chapman?
3. How did the forger know that James Maybrick struck his wife Florence several times before the Grand national in 1889?
4. How did the forger know that the daughter of James Maybrick, Gladys, was consistently an ill child?

If you can provide an answer, as to how any modern forger acquired the knowledge to answer these questions then your argument may appear stronger.

Kind regards & Best wishes, James.

[Kaz]

Indeed these are just some of the major points that work in favor of the Diary. If the Diary is a modern forgery, can you explain the following questions ? ;

1. How did the forger know that James Mayrbick was indeed away from home at Christmas 1888?
2. How did the forger know that there were two, not three, brass rings missing from the body of Annie Chapman?
3. How did the forger know that James Maybrick struck his wife Florence several times before the Grand national in 1889?
4. How did the forger know that the daughter of James Maybrick, Gladys, was consistently an ill child?

If you can provide an answer, as to how any modern forger acquired the knowledge to answer these questions then your argument may appear stronger.

Kind regards & Best wishes, James.

I think the general consensus from the debunkers is the forger/s just did a lot of homework and just got 'lucky'. I wonder if they did the lottery that week, would have made a fortune...

[James_J]

I am in total agreement. Unfortunately the sheer extent of luck needed is beyond all reasonable acceptability.

James.

[RavenDarkendale]

If the Diary is a modern forgery, can you explain the following questions ? ;

1. How did the forger know that James Mayrbick was indeed away from home at Christmas 1888?
2. How did the forger know that there were two, not three, brass rings missing from the body of Annie Chapman?
3. How did the forger know that James Maybrick struck his wife Florence several times before the Grand national in 1889?
4. How did the forger know that the daughter of James Maybrick, Gladys, was consistently an ill child?

If you can provide an answer, as to how any modern forger acquired the knowledge to answer these questions then your argument may appear stronger.

Kind regards & Best wishes, James.

No criticism meant here, just a reflection and question. I assume from your statement that these points can be proven true, outside of their appearance in the diary. That being said, there must be a record somewhere that confirms the events described in the diary actually happened as stated. Why could a modern forger not found out about these things if records were kept?

God bless

Darkendale

[Chris]

In addition, the fact that the author of the Diary used the same wording as the police report surely bolsters historical integrity ?

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?

[MayBea]

Again, match box empty can easily be a direct quote from a Josh Billings poem, Hotels. He was an American humorist, second to Mark Twain.

Thare iz a match-box, empty

http://books.google.ca/books?id=pkM1...0empty&f=false

Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 40, Number 6096, 15 October 1870

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SDU18701015.2.7

[Magpie]

Professional graphologist Hannah Koren, categorically stated that the Diary could not be written by a forger. She stated; "The handwriting is fluent; it has not been copied. It was written as it was thought. Secondly, it is not a disguised hand. It is completely natural. Finally, the handwriting has so many complications and disturbances that it could only have been written by the individual who felt these emotions." [23.12.92]

Graphology is nonsense--might as well hire a professional unicorn wrangler.

[James_J]

Thank you for the responses! In reply to Darkendale yes, those questions can be proven outside of the information provided by the Diary. That is precisely why I asked them. In regard to empty matchbox there are a few important considerations;

Firstly, yes - A modern forger could, hypothetically, read the list of Catharine Eddowes's possessions and included the empty matchbox in the Diary. However, it is vital that we acknowledge the written context of the reference. The following line of the Diary reads; "Oh Mr. Abberline, he is a clever little man/he keeps back all that he can." This is an explicit reference to police withholding information about the matchbox from the media. A modern forger could not have known that the matchbox was withheld from the press without consulting EVERY newspaper article from the period.


Paul H. Feldman writes; "If the Diary was a modern forgery, then once again its author had shown his diligence. He may have read the list of Catharine Eddowes's belongings in the books published in 1987, but he could not have known that the "empty tin matchbox" was held back from the media without checking every newspaper report of the period-something we were forced to do." [The Final Chapter, 1997] I believe it is both unreasonable and naive to suggest that any modern forger would take such lengths to include a single off-hand reference to the matchbox.


In regard to the phrasing - the author of the Diary writes; "Damn it, the tin box was empty." By comparison, the official document listing Catharine Eddowe's possessions writes; 1 Tin matchbox, empty. Considering the evidence, [discussed above] I not accept that coincidental resemblance of terminology or phrasing, is a serious, creditable or persuasive criticism of the Diary.

In reply to the Josh Billings suggestion, this does nothing to detract from the Diary. The date of the article is given as 15th October 1870. The Diary is not purported to be written until 1888. If Maybrick was attempting to include the matchbox through poetry or rhyme, he may naturally have gravitated to such a poem.

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.

Kind Regards & Best Wishes! James.

[lynn cates]

turf

Hello James. First, permit me to welcome you to the boards.

Second, let me say I have little interest in the "Diary" but something you stated caught my eye. You noted that the diarist's allusion to Abberline's withholding information is a clear reference to the tin matchbox.

But since it belonged to Kate, and she were killed on City of London turf, surely it would not fall under his dominion to withhold or not?

Or is it the case that the diarist is confused about whom is in charge?

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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]

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]

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.

[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.