new info on the diary

[MayBea]

Or who read up about him much later, Graham, e.g.

Is the 'genius' forger theory of the modern hoax preferable to the 'insider' theory of the old forgery side?

Not to get into the middle of the two sides of the hoax fray but why defend new hoax versus old hoax?

[MayBea]

MayBea, Mrs Briggs was Maybrick's junior by 12 years, therefore,
not "old" in relation to Maybrick.

Livia,
Might you be thinking of the Diary passage "Encountered old friend on the Exchange floor"?

Hammersmith is not referred to as old.

[The Good Michael]

Or who read up about him much later, Graham, e.g.

The Girl with the Scarlet Brand, Charles Boswell and Lewis Thompson (Fawcett, 1954)

Mrs Maybrick, in "Famous Trials III" (Penguin Paperbacks, 1950)

This Friendless Lady, Nigel Morland (Muller, 1957)

Etched in Arsenic, Trevor Christie (Chambers/Harrap, 1969)

The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, Bernard Ryan (1977)

... among, I daresay, others.

Well...if someone read all those books about Maybrick, I'd say he/she was close to him in a sense. Hello Gareth.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

if it wasn't James Maybrick (and I don't believe it was) then it was by a person or persons very close to him and who knew a lot about him, his history, his family and his lifestyle.

Or who read up about him much later, Graham, e.g.

The Girl with the Scarlet Brand, Charles Boswell and Lewis Thompson (Fawcett, 1954)

Mrs Maybrick, in "Famous Trials III" (Penguin Paperbacks, 1950)

This Friendless Lady, Nigel Morland (Muller, 1957)

Etched in Arsenic, Trevor Christie (Chambers/Harrap, 1969)

The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, Bernard Ryan (1977)

... among, I daresay, others.

[Graham]

I rather think that Mike could possibly have been telling the truth when he claimed to have received the thing from Devereux. If this is the case, then Devereux presumably got it from the electricians who were his fellow-drinkers in The Saddle pub. So why give it to Mike Barrett?

Mike had aspirations as an author, and had tried to get kids' stories published ("Danny The Dolphin Boy" being one) without much success. He also had a word-processor, which I suggest were not common in working-class Liverpool in 1992, and he visited libraries, also an uncommon pastime. It is therefore possible that Mike was viewed by his mates as something of a 'literary bloke', hence the gift of the nicked Diary which its finders probably viewed as useless and worthless.

The Devereux daughters swore that their father had never been in possession of the Diary, so if the above is anything close to what happened, Devereux may have had the thing for only a very short time, probably just an hour or so, and maybe it never left The Saddle until it was passed to Mike.

As to who wrote it, I'm still none the wiser, but if it wasn't James Maybrick (and I don't believe it was) then it was by a person or persons very close to him and who knew a lot about him, his history, his family and his lifestyle.

Graham:

[Brenda]

.

"Would the Grahams even know that Jack the Ripper was a mystery and that their family heirloom was the solution?"

Wouldn't a Brit NOT knowing that JTR was a mystery be kind of like an American not knowing that the JFK murder was a mystery?

[MayBea]

Anne Graham's story, that she gave it to Tony Devereaux to give to her then house-husband so he could 'do something with it', makes sense to me.

Why else would a retired newspaper worker or anyone else give such a newsworthy discovery to Michael Barrett?

Would the Grahams even know that Jack the Ripper was a mystery and that their family heirloom was the solution?

[MayBea]

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...

Livia Trivia, I presume. Hello and holiday greetings. Thank you for your research.

If you are the same Livia Trivia, I already credited you for your research in the Jack Wilson question in the Other Mysteries section.

[pinkmoon]

Of course it makes sense. You can't be prosecuted for
profiting off the sale of a family heirloom. And the two
aren't mutually exclusive, i.e. the diary could be genuinely
old but not a Graham family heirloom. When it was realized
that the Tony Devereaux story wasn't holding, a new
provenance had to be invented, one that wouldn't carry
with it a penalty for handling stolen property.

Merry Christmas to you too.

Hi and a merry Christmas,what I meant was it dosnt make sense if diary is genuine so it obviously isn't

[Livia]

Of course it makes sense. You can't be prosecuted for
profiting off the sale of a family heirloom. And the two
aren't mutually exclusive, i.e. the diary could be genuinely
old but not a Graham family heirloom. When it was realized
that the Tony Devereaux story wasn't holding, a new
provenance had to be invented, one that wouldn't carry
with it a penalty for handling stolen property.

Merry Christmas to you too.

[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

[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).

[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

[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.

[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...