new info on the diary

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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 Dave

Thanks for that, must have been a pretty ordinary Tin then, or the police didn't place much importance on it. IE never thought it was left by Jacky as some diary supporters seem to suggest.

GUT

[Cogidubnus]

Hi GUT

I'd assume a pretty ordinary tin...possibly old and battered, otherwise it probably wouldn't be in the hands of an 1888 doss house dweller

All the best

Dave

[pinkmoon]

I think if we wait a bit longer this tin matchbox might turn up in a Liverpool pub.

[MayBea]

Thanks for that, must have been a pretty ordinary Tin then, or the police didn't place much importance on it. IE never thought it was left by Jacky as some diary supporters seem to suggest.

Hi, GUT,
Based on just the canonical five, I'd say it's one in five that she had a tin. Low odds for anyone who thinks the diary was written pre-1988 by someone who only read the newspapers, where we haven't found it mentioned yet. Empty would be a good guess if he didn't catch it in the Echo, and only read in the Times that it contained only cotton and therefore no matches. But made of tin?...

Diary supporters are suggesting that Jack planted the red leather cigarette case, not the matchbox. Unless you're talking about the matchbox with the cotton... They/we are suggesting the cotton was also planted.

P.S. You'd think a forger would highlight cotton in the matchbox with it being reported in 1888 instead of just saying Jack left clues and expecting you to find it in the Times. Then again, genius and luck know no bounds.

[MayBea]

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

Then Sam, don't forget to read Caz's rebuttal. I just read it and she mentions the Dickensian suggestion. Her response is different than mine because she doesn't necessarily believe the author went to America.
http://www.jamesmaybrick.org/pdf%20f...20article).pdf