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

[erobitha]

Just because someone was never named as a suspect historically means nothing. Police have historically been quite bad at identifying suspects successfully on their own investigative steam (without the use of science, confessions, tip-offs, caught in the act, etc).

It is completely plausible that "a other" person was Jack the Ripper. Which leaves a wide open field of possibilities.

[rjpalmer]

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.

Your fear and paranoia of Orsam is at such a fever-pitch, Ike, (have you ever written a post longer than a paragraph without referring to him?) that you now think you see him in the unlikeliest of people and places--once again demonstrating that the Diary crowd is really, really, really, bad at identifying unknown authors.

[The Baron]

A moment to tip my hat to Roger for chiming in and making me feel slightly less like I’ve been tossed into the lion’s den of diary devotees. He of course has hit the nail on the head, though I fear Ike’s posts might soon contain more references to Orsam than the diary contains “clues.”

If my skepticism bears even a whiff of his, perhaps that’s less about me channeling him and more about the diary’s inherent flaws being obvious to anyone with a magnifying glass.

Now Ike, I asked you to provide something to link Maybrick to the Ripper murders beyond the diary and the watch. Yet here we are, with more linguistic gymnastics and less evidence than a séance in a blackout.

You say Maybrick hadn’t been associated with the Ripper prior to 1992 but argue that he can now be "retrospectively tied in." Tied in how, Ike? By retrofitting his name onto dubious clues discovered a century later? I imagine if we squinted hard enough, we could “tie in” half the Victorian gentry to the Whitechapel murders. But that’s not evidence, that’s creative writing.

So, Ike, I’ll ask again, where’s the meat? Where’s the context, the historical record, the evidence, anything that elevates Maybrick above the level of “Who???” as a suspect? You’ve demonstrated your ability to write an impassioned defense, but without substance, it’s just a well crafted soapbox.

I look forward to seeing what you bring to the table next, until then, I’ll be here, pondering whether to inscribe my name on a century old signet ring.



The Baron

[Iconoclast]

I look forward to seeing what you bring to the table next, until then, I’ll be here, pondering whether to inscribe my name on a century old signet ring.
The Baron

Well, The Baron, the scrapbook and the watch should not be so casually trivialised and marginalised that you have the right to command further evidence of Maybrick's guilt beyond their not inconsiderable measure; however - in answer to your question - I wrote my brilliant Society's Pillar to save me from having to constantly repeat myself and I am writing my remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 to save me from from the same plight only with more words in it. You are welcome to return your gaze upon the former (if you have forgotten its contents) and you are welcome to eagerly - I have no doubt - await the considerations of the latter whose title may not be quite as eponymous as you might otherwise be anticipating, I regret to say.

You ask as though the asking is all it takes to solve the crime, when all around you are fallen candidates who have no sturdier staff than rumour and guesswork and insidious inference to keep them erect on this long road! Imagine going onto, say, a Druitt site and asking the same questions you ask of me. Who would take you seriously? And who could possibly appease your doubts?

Your Old Mate Ike

[The Baron]

You really know how to keep a conversation going. When it comes to criminal investigations, the whole “wait for the next volume to clear everything up” strategy doesn’t exactly fill with confidence. A little more solid evidence and a little less “coming soon” would go a long way in answering the doubts I’ve raised.

Don’t act like asking questions is some criminal offense. If you’re so quick to dismiss any doubt or inquiry, maybe you’re more interested in protecting a narrative than finding the truth.

You’re asking me to skip right over basic skepticism because these items, and I use that term loosely, are “not inconsiderable.” Let’s be real, we’re not solving a murder mystery with antiques here, Ike. If these were such heavy hitters, I’d expect a bit more than a couple of well aged trinkets to convince me that Maybrick was the Ripper.

And as for Druitt? Don’t worry, I’m sure I’d get the same kind of answers over there “Oh, he could have been the guy, we think”



The Baron

[Iconoclast]

You’re asking me to skip right over basic skepticism because these items, and I use that term loosely, are “not inconsiderable.” Let’s be real, we’re not solving a murder mystery with antiques here, Ike. If these were such heavy hitters, I’d expect a bit more than a couple of well aged trinkets to convince me that Maybrick was the Ripper.

The trick in this game, The Baron, is to avoid thinking that people think they can convert you to their way of thinking. You'll just get all wound-up and defensive when the gloves are off. We all know that there are no converts. We have our corners and we sit there loyally fighting them, but I don't honestly expect you or anyone else to come over to my corner in a case like this - bedevilled as it is by age and a more or less complete lack of evidence for any candidate. I remain reassured that at least in Maybrick we have something we can consider and do not need to resort to the colour of Mrs Puddleduck's socks to entertain us but if you think for even a moment that I believe anyone will convert, then please think again. No-one will. It's not how this game is played.

[Lombro2]

You have to admit it Ike. We Hoax Theorists have the Lord and professor on our side. Professor Orsam. Just like I have a professor on my side in the Patterson-Gimlin Film.

Jeffrey Meldrum - Wikipedia

I know how some people will nitpick and say the film was "supposedly" taken on October 20th of 1967 in Northern California and yet there's not a leaf on the ground.

Well, all I have to say is that was the year the Maple Leafs won the Cup. So the Leafs were strong that year. They didn't fall in October like they usually do.

"Professor" Lombroso

[Iconoclast]

You have to admit it Ike. We Hoax Theorists have the Lord and professor on our side. Professor Orsam. Just like I have a professor on my side in the Patterson-Gimlin Film.
Jeffrey Meldrum - Wikipedia

I wouldn't be too keen to put your big foot in it, Viscount Lombroso - Orsam is a Lord but no professor, believe me.

You talk of sides as though sides matter and that the size of sides might concern me. I'd happily face off a hundred thousand Spartans and still stand rock steady at the bloody end, mate, with barely a scratch on me.

Unless they're from Blyth, obviously ...

[Iconoclast]

Hard to look that one up, by the way, Viscount L ...

[Lombro2]

Thanks for that. Maybe the 58 year drought can end now. And the Patterson-Gimlin film finally accepted as real.... And I can be the Man who killed Hitler, the Sasquatch and the Diary.