The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[rjpalmer]

or that red handkerchiefs are not common.

Red handkerchiefs are indeed common...in the Ripper books of the 70s and 80s.

I think one would be hard pressed to convince readers familiar with those books that the reference to a red handkerchief in the Kelly murder isn't a reference to George Hutchinson's suspect.

The diarist himself saw to that by throwing in all the obligatory tidbits from Ripper lore...the farthings, the torn envelope, the Lusk kidney, the 'Dear Boss' letter, the shying pony in Dutfield's Yard, etc. The astute reader will see the red handkerchief as just another example of the diarist staying very close to the 'canon.'

Had the diarists strayed further from the lore in the rest of the text....maybe. But that's not the case.

The historian Alex Chisholm once opined that the real diary of Jack the Ripper would almost certainly have been an unprintable harangue of perversion and violence. The diarist, by contrast, takes great pains to keep the text PG-13, and thus suitable for a mass audience.

RP

[Lombro2]

James also had an Irish grandmother.

I don’t think Hutch factored that in.

Ever seen Maybrickian James Johnson. He looks 14. So add quarter Irish and darkness and you got 50.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"35 in the dark usually means 45. Unless you’re a professional night time witness."

It is noticeable how quickly the Maybrick theorists will abandon the case evidence and instead rely on their own impressions while throwing in unsourced 'factoids.'

In his statement to Abberline, Hutchinson recounted how he specifically moved underneath the lamp of the Queen's Head pub so he could get a good look at the man as he passed through the light. When the man did pass through the light, Hutchinson crouched down so he could stare directly in the man's face.

Does gaslight shave 15 years off your age and make you look Jewish? Or does it only make you look like Cillian Murphy?

Lombro would be better off arguing that Maybrick ate so many Arsenic Complexion Wafers that he had pale, youthful skin. Hutchinson believed he saw the same man again in broad daylight, though he couldn't be certain.

As witnesses go Hutchinson, if he was being truthful, couldn’t have got any nearer to look at the guy and under the light of a lamp as you say Roger. Is Maybrick immune from scrutiny Roger? Has there been a new ripperological rule?

[John Wheat]

I don't put much stock in the witness statements. As we don't know who did and didn't see the Ripper and witness statements are notoriously unreliable. However it's obvious that Maybrick wasn't the Ripper. The evidence is just not there. And the diary is clearly a modern fake.

[rjpalmer]

"35 in the dark usually means 45. Unless you’re a professional night time witness."

It is noticeable how quickly the Maybrick theorists will abandon the case evidence and instead rely on their own impressions while throwing in unsourced 'factoids.'

In his statement to Abberline, Hutchinson recounted how he specifically moved underneath the lamp of the Queen's Head pub so he could get a good look at the man as he passed through the light. When the man did pass through the light, Hutchinson crouched down so he could stare directly in the man's face.

Does gaslight shave 15 years off your age and make you look Jewish? Or does it only make you look like Cillian Murphy?

Lombro would be better off arguing that Maybrick ate so many Arsenic Complexion Wafers that he had pale, youthful skin. Hutchinson believed he saw the same man again in broad daylight, though he couldn't be certain.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Stride murder throws up more doubt (not proof I hasten to add) Maybrick couldn’t be claiming to be BS man because, apart from the description not matching, he doesn’t mention Schwartz or Pipeman so the assumption must be that he arrived after Schwartz left. The body was found at 1.00.

‘Maybrick’ said in the diary : “Within the quarter of the hour I found another dirty bitch willing to sell her wares.”


So around 1.10 he meets Eddowes and kills her? And yet Eddowes is seen talking to a man in Duke Street 20-25 minutes later.

Does anyone think it likely that Eddowes, being released at 1.00 and walks for 10 minutes in an unknown direction. She bumps into Maybrick and for some reason they walk to Mitre Street and then stand around talking for what, 20 minutes or so?

Another one ready for the broom and the Axminster.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is this such an issue and why are people so reluctant to accept the slightest point that’s not in favour of Maybrick.

What I’ve said is simple….the author of the diary is claiming to be the man that Hutchinson saw and the description that he gives isn’t a description of James Maybrick. Could the witness have been wrong? Witnesses can certainly be wrong but we have to note that according to Hutchinson he couldn’t possibly have got any closer to Aman unless he’d thrown his arms around him and smothered him in kisses.

There are no certainties and I’m not claiming any, but this has to be classed as a point against Maybrick. There are points against all suspects. Does anyone think that Maybrick is such a case closed that there are no points against him?

[erobitha]

Sorry, are we saying Hutchinson's witness testimony is beyond reproach or that red handkerchiefs are not common.

Perhaps I'm missing the point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wasn’t making a leap. And for the second time Ike….i wasn’t mentioning this as being conclusive proof of anything. Is it the case that you don’t think that anything is worthy of mentioning that doesn’t support Maybrick? When discussing all witnesses and all suspects we tend to use a tick box system.

34-35 Maybrick was 15 years older.
Slight moustache This doesn’t fit the moustache that we have images of.
Jewish appearance On no account can he be described as Jewish looking.

Does this eliminate Maybrick? No
Does it count as a point against him? Yes

Is it suspicious that someone would seek to deny or sideline this point? Yes.

[Iconoclast]

The only wriggling I see around here is where someone caught themselves on a hook and couldn't get off it without an extraordinary leap. The red handkerchief is irrelevant other than that it ties the Maybrick tale to Hutchinson's witness statement and this has to be accepted at face value - we can't arbitrarily negate its value because Hutchinson implied this or that about Maybrick's facial appearance. If his description was patently off - you know, like he said he was Japanese or something - fair enough, but the man he described in the early hours of the morning was more than passable for Maybrick and probably other candidates. What is interesting is that 'Jack' was not a young man - he was not obviously 25 or whatever. He was clearly older. Hutchinson said 35 (or whatever). Could a middle class man having just turned 50 have a younger appearance to a working class person who was used to the ravages of time taking its toll much quicker on the face? You don't need to answer this, you just have to factor it in before you leap into a conclusion you shouldn't be leaping into.



I don't think we can make that leap myself. Just saying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

It just dawned on me how Ike can sidestep the red handkerchief. We can't underestimate the mental gymnastics of the true believers...

He'll argue that Hutchinson's Jewish gentleman, aged 34, did indeed give Kelly a red handkerchief...and left it in No. 9 Miller's Court as a present when he departed the room 60 minutes later.

Kelly, revitalized and still very much alive, hits the streets again and now uses her fancy red handkerchief as a prop to flirt with her next customer....James Maybrick, gentile, aged 50, just back to the East End after attending an evening concert in Redhill.

I certainly don't think this is what the diarist had in mind when he penned the line, 'a handkerchief red, led to the bed'--I also think the diarist is laying claim to being Hutchinson's suspect---but it allows Ike to temporarily escape the noose while he stares at his navel and contemplates the meaning of 'One Off Instance.'

Hi Ike,

I didn’t realise that there would be any wriggling on this one. It’s never-ending isn’t it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

His coup de grace is James looking like the Anglo-Irish gentile that he is. So what?



He just threw in the red rag for the bull.

Have you ever said anything serious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

i am asking because it is far far easier to shout ‘hoax’ than it is to actually prove one.

And it’s also far easier to obfuscate, casually dismiss or simply flat out duck and dive on the issue of ‘one off instance.’ David Barrat showed that the phrase was an anachronism and couldn’t have appeared in a genuine diary in 1888. He did this using research and evidence with an open invitation to prove him wrong. The entirely fair thing to do after putting this out there would be to allow others to research and potentially refute the point of course. Usually when you ask a question a period of time is allowed for the answer. A week? A month? Even six months. Well, you and others have had around 10 years. How much longer do you need? Up until now we have had ‘explanations’ that wouldn’t have been out of place in a nursery. Not a single valid response has been made Ike. Not one in 10 whole years.

Under anything like normal circumstances the point would have been conceded years ago but no. The ‘investment’ (I’m not talking financial btw) is a heavy one. How much longer do you feel is required? Another 10….another 20? Just long enough to keep the game going until everyone finally loses interest? 10 years is beyond ludicrous.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Talk about being in absolute denial.

I’m afraid that it’s you who are ‘in denial.’ You are completely ignoring what I said in my post #764. After reading that post there is absolutely no reason to ask the question that you did about disproving the authenticity.

One example of what exactly? The casual reader could hardly be blamed for assuming that ‘red handkerchief’ must be something which disproves the authenticity of the scrapbook. There it is in black and white, and I for one would like a straight answer to the question it poses: how does the author’s mention of ‘red handkerchief’ disprove the possible authenticity of the scrapbook?

In a previous post I clearly said “ I’ve never claimed that the red handkerchief was proof that Maybrick couldn’t have been the ripper.” Yes…it was in black and white, Ike.

i am asking because it is far far easier to shout ‘hoax’ than it is to actually prove one.

I’m finding this a little surreal to say the least. Here we all are on a discussion board, the main subject of which is Jack the Ripper. Day in day out we discuss the relative merits of suspects and we do this by pointing out points for and against. The episode of the red handkerchief in the diary with its description of the ripper is a point against James Maybrick because the description doesn’t resemble him.

So my straight answer is that I’m not claiming that the red handkerchief is proof that Maybrick wasn’t the ripper. I’m claiming, with justification, that the description of the so-called ripper doesn’t fit James Maybrick. Therefore it can be considered a point against him. Why am I having to explain this?

[Lombro2]

His coup de grace is James looking like the Anglo-Irish gentile that he is. So what?



He just threw in the red rag for the bull.