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

[Iconoclast]

Bumped from the false dichotomy thread ...

This is sort of off-topic directly, but has tangetcial connection: Hoax or not, old or new, PRIOR to the discovery of the diary (?1992), was James Maybrick EVER mentioned as a serious Ripper suspect by ANYONE? My apologies if this has been answered before.

Hi C.F.,

The answer to your question is almost certainly, 'No'. It is, of course, possible that he was linked in some way in a way not yet known (a letter to a newspaper in, say, 1914, for example), but there is nothing that I am aware of which links him to Jack. I wouldn't include the famous 'scales of justice' cartoon which placed Florence Maybrick on one side and Jack the Ripper on the other as that was a political point not a helpful pointer to the police.

I find it amusing that the 'hoaxer' focused in on such an utterly implausible Jack. Imagine all of those people who said before 1993 (when Maybrick's name was first openly linked with the Ripper), "When I get up to Heaven I will ask St. Peter who the Whitechapel fiend was and I fully expect to exclaim, "Who???" when he tells me".

Maybrick really was that moment, only here on terra firma ...

Makes you wonder at quite how inventive that radical hoaxer was, doesn't it? Of all the potential candidates for Jack - both then already accused and not accused - he or she or they doubled-down (don't forget the watch) on a relatively prosperous Liverpool middle class businessman of decent standing in his home city some two hundred miles away from the scenes of the crimes.

Not only was the hoaxer a radical risk-taker but they were incredibly perspicacious too - becoming the first person (or people) to ever spot Florence Maybrick's initials on Mary Kelly's wall, granting them the tangential device of the "An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother" line to hook fish like I into their dastardly trap.

James Mayrick?

Who??????????????

[The Baron]

Try harder mate, the diary alone won’t cut it! Look, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the diary and your clear investment in its claims, but relying solely on the diary to defend Maybrick as a credible suspect is a bit like trying to sail the Titanic with duct tape. It floats for a while, sure, but the holes are glaring.

First, you admit outright that there’s no evidence tying Maybrick to the Ripper murders before 1992. That’s not just a small detail, it’s the entire iceberg. Even the most obscure and extremely weak Ripper suspects (Druitt, Bury, etc.) were at least vaguely on someone’s radar during the period, or shortly after. But Maybrick? A prosperous Liverpudlian cotton merchant who somehow moonlighted as the most infamous serial killer in history? As you said yourself: “Who???”

The fact that he wasn’t remotely suspected until the diary’s sudden appearance in the 1990s isn’t a mark of brilliance on the part of the supposed “hoaxer.” It’s a sign that screams, “This came out of nowhere!” If you’re defending the diary, the least you can do is provide some context or history that might suggest Maybrick had even a whiff of suspicion surrounding him before this convenient discovery.

Picking an obscure figure isn’t genius, obscure suspects give you room to embellish, to weave stories, to plant “evidence” (cue Florence’s initials on Mary Kelly’s wall, how convenient).

But I digress. Let’s add some humor to your claim, shall we? Here’s how the hoaxer’s brainstorming session might’ve gone:

• Choose a suspect: “Hmm, how about this random cotton merchant no one’s heard of?”
• Write a diary: “We’ll sprinkle in some old timey slang, vague confessions, and a few references to his alleged arsenic habit. Perfect!”
• Convince everyone: “Throw in a watch for good measure. If they doubt the diary, surely they’ll believe the scratches on a random piece of jewelry!”

In all seriousness, if you’re going to defend Maybrick as a suspect, you’ll need more than a diary of dubious origin and some initials conveniently “discovered” a century after the fact. Why not dig deeper? Did Maybrick ever travel to London during the murder dates? Were there any whispers about his behavior at the time? Did he even have time to dash back and forth between Whitechapel and Liverpool without missing a business meeting or afternoon tea?

And as much as I admire your passion, you owe it to us to bring something stronger to the table than a shallow journal with “hoax” practically embossed on the cover.

So, try harder, dig deeper, Just don’t make me say “Who???” again.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

It's clearly a modern hoax that was odds on written by the Barretts.

[Lombro2]

A Hoax or not a Hoax? That is the question. And a lovely one at that for anyone who is a debunker. We're all debunkers here, more or less, aren't we?

We love the Piltdown Man, the Cardiff Giant, and the Cottingley Fairies. It's no different with the Diary. It's a fun fairytale time of Purple Dragons and Bumbling Buffoons. It should be all fun and games and enjoyable debate. But it doesn't seem to go that way with the Diary. I've been on both sides of hoaxes so I know how it goes sometimes.

I have to admit I can get testy over the Sasquatch and the Patterson-Gimlin film but I try to control myself. I know, by getting hostile and mean, I wouldn't be doing Patterson or Gimlin or the Sasquatch any favors. I would be making myself look like a tin-foil fanatic or a monomaniac with an agenda. So although I don't take kindly to the comparison of the Diary to the Patterson-Gimlin Film, I remain calm and focused and get all my ducks and frames in order.

Instead of throwing a conniption, I remind myself I have scientists and professors and experts and even science on my side, same as I do with the Diary Debate. The other side either has the Woo Factor or the Giant Ongoing National Conspiracy.

Then I model my behavior on Caz who is level-headed and calm and unbiased and, as a consequence, does a better job with the Hoax theory than anyone else. Why can't we all just do the same with the Diary?

Now pretend my name is Eric Shipton and carry on!

[Iconoclast]

First, you admit outright that there's no evidence tying Maybrick to the Ripper murders before 1992. That's not just a small detail, it's the entire iceberg. The Baron

This is why, dear readers, I am never allowed to rest. No-one has challenged The Baron's Orsamesque misrepresentation of what I said so - it seems - I have to do it.

I very clearly did NOT state that 'there's no evidence tying Maybrick to the Ripper murders before 1992'. I confirmed for C.F. Lyon that - prior to 1992 - Maybrick had not been associated directly as the Whitechapel fiend.

On the contrary, once we knew of Maybrick's name via the scrapbook (and the watch), we could look back and see how Maybrick could indeed be tied into the Ripper murders.

Now, we can debate whether that tying-in was any greater than the tenuous tying-in of Druitt, Kosinski, Chapman, you know, all the usual candidates people slavishly dredge up, but what we can't do is arbitrarily argue that Maybrick not being mentioned until 1992 therefore implies that he can't be retrospectively tied-in too.

I think The Baron has been reading too much Orsam and has suddenly - with an astonishing volte face on his or her control of the English language - acquired the capacity to see only what he or she wishes to see in data which does not in anyway confirm their very unsteady conclusions.

I don't mind in the slightest being challenged (I think I've shown that over the long years) but I deeply object to being - possibly deliberately - misrepresented.

Ike