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

[rjpalmer]

then the argument would be made that Mike Barrett had simply smeared it on the scrapbook himself.

I was going to comment on this, Ike, but didn't think it was worth the bother. Such observations, I think, show a certain lack of effort.

In the UK, arsenic is listed as a 'Part 1' poison under the Poison List Order of 1982. Barrett would have needed a license to obtain the type of arsenic ingested by Maybrick, so the idea of our boy Bongo simply popping down to the local chemists and then sprinkling it on the scrapbook is a non-starter, nor does your flippant suggestion reflect the sophistication of the types of analysis available to Drs. Pittalą or Zilberstein, etc.

No; I think such an analysis could be very telling indeed, but, as I say, I'm just chewing the fat. These veils will never be lifted.

[Lombro2]

Let's face it. At this point, the forensic analysis of the diary will forever be stuck in the 90s...

We got internet forums now, so who cares?

But I can see why you want an arsenic test. You want a test where a negative helps you, this time. Not like that sad, negative chloroacetamide test. One negative too many.

[rjpalmer]

"We got internet forums now, so who cares?"

And RFK Jr. might as well shut down the Center for Disease Control. We can get all the medical advice we need about Covid, measles, and vaccines from internet chatrooms.

[rjpalmer]

Apart from one off instance which is the diary’s coup de grace there are other factors too. The red handkerchief is one example.

Hi Herlock,

Out of curiosity, why should Ike be concerned about the diary's reference to a red handkerchief?

Hutchinson thought the man with Kelly had a Jewish appearance, but I'm not immediately grasping why that poses a major problem.

Cheers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Out of curiosity, why should Ike be concerned about the diary's reference to a red handkerchief?

Hutchinson thought the man with Kelly had a Jewish appearance, but I'm not immediately grasping why that poses a major problem.

Cheers.

Hi Roger,

For me this just isn’t a description of Maybrick. He’s described as being fifteen years younger than he actually was and I’ve never seen a photograph/picture of him with a ‘slight’ moustache curled up at each end. Most of all though I can’t see any reason why anyone would describe him as being Jewish-looking.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Roger,

For me this just isn’t a description of Maybrick. He’s described as being fifteen years younger than he actually was and I’ve never seen a photograph/picture of him with a ‘slight’ moustache curled up at each end. Most of all though I can’t see any reason why anyone would describe him as being Jewish-looking.

Thanks, Herlock.

I get that---I was just wondering if there was something else that I might be missing. It's not a great description of Maybrick to be sure.

I don't know when the photograph of James Maybrick with the watch fob, etc., was first published, but I reckon the hoaxer saw it and thought the get-up he was wearing might vaguely pass for Hutchinson's suspect (no Astrakhan, of course) thus the use of Middlesex Street as his alleged bolt hole in the text.

Cheers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks, Herlock.

I get that---I was just wondering if there was something else that I might be missing. It's not a great description of Maybrick to be sure.

I don't know when the photograph of James Maybrick with the watch fob, etc., was first published, but I reckon the hoaxer saw it and thought the get-up he was wearing might vaguely pass for Hutchinson's suspect (no Astrakhan, of course) thus the use of Middlesex Street as his alleged bolt hole in the text.

Cheers.

I’m of the same opinion Roger. A vague pass without much thought being put into it. Just the fact that Hitch’s man was better dressed than your average Whitechapel early hours of the morning lounger. I just can’t imagine anyone describing Maybrick as Jewish looking.

[Iconoclast]

Out of curiosity, why should Ike be concerned about the diary's reference to a red handkerchief?

What a good question you pose, RJ. Like you and every other one of my dear readers, I too was thinking "What the **** has the red handkerchief got to do with the price of fish?".

Hutchinson either saw James Maybrick get out a red handkerchief or else he did not but a hoaxer wrote as though he had. How does this unresolvable dichotomy of possibilities get us any further towards the truth - or, to be more specific, how does that prove the Maybrick scrapbook to be a hoax?

Sometimes, RJ, I think you and I think surprisingly alike. You were just more polite than I was on this occasion. As per, I guess.

Ike

[Lombro2]

Shut down the forums then. We can all get our profiling and behavioural science from ex law enforcement and from academics who need a controlled research study for violent crime.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike,

I'm at my desk today and can give an immediate response, but I suspected (wrongly, as it turns out) that Herlock may have been thinking of an argument first raised by Bob Hinton.

Due to the rods and cones in our eyes, we humans aren't very good at seeing color in dim light, and red is one of the hardest colors to see. Hinton's argument was that there is no way in hell--if I can use that phrase--that Hutchinson could have known the handkerchief was red, so he dismisses Hutchinson as a liar.

Obviously, if there was no red handkerchief this poses a problem for the diary.

I think the argument (though no one actually made it) is rather weak. There is a type of red handkerchief that has a distinctive pattern, and Hutchinson could have recognized that pattern even in monochrome; further, we don't really have a good sense of the ambient light conditions, so I'm hesitant to call George a liar.

I am, admittedly, one of those rare souls that believe Hutchinson has been given something of a raw deal. Abberline interrogated him, believed his story, and I'm in no position to second guess a detective inspector who was there when I obviously wasn't. Old Fred had a lot of experience, and police detectives tend to be skeptical of witnesses and witness descriptions as a rule, so his opinion carries some weight.

I don't think Maybrick looks particularly Jewish, though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one would describe Maybrick as Jewish-looking unless he owned a Rabbi Disguise Kit as Inspector Clouseau might have done. He didn’t have a ‘slight’ moustache. We have no evidence of him having a curled-up-at-the-end one either. He was 50 and yet Hutchinson described his man as 15 years younger. So..

a) this description favours the case that Hutchinson saw James Maybrick,

or,

b) this description favours that Hutchinson saw someone that clearly wasn’t James Maybrick.


Is this a difficult choice for anyone?

[Iconoclast]

Red handkerchief, anyone?

I’m sure someone bigged-up some reference to ‘red handkerchief’ like it really showed insight on their part.

Or did RJ and I simply dream it???

[Lombro2]

Were you expecting Snidley Whiplash?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve never claimed that the red handkerchief was proof that Maybrick couldn’t have been the ripper but it’s obvious to anyone that, as part of the diary, it’s a point for consideration. The diarist is clearly claiming to have been the man that Hutchinson saw with Kelly. The description though is absolutely nothing like Maybrick. It’s a fact that can of course be brushed under the nearest convenient carpet but I’d suggest that we would be on safe ground in suggesting that if this description had matched Maybrick then it would have been perfectly acceptable to mention it. The louder the better no doubt.

It’s a strong point against Maybrick. This is simply a fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Were you expecting Snidley Whiplash?

Abraham Rosenberg?
Israel Bernstein?
Aaron Friedman?

or is it the non-Jewish James Maybrick?

The ‘not-looking-even-vaguely-Jewish’ looking James Maybrick?