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

[caz]

A well to do business man can’t even avail himself of a proper diary or even a notebook. He is reduced to emptying a photo album and tearing out pages.

I'm pretty sure the real James Maybrick would have been able to fork out for a proper diary or notebook for all his innocent purposes, but that doesn't apply here. Your hoaxer was trying to make a serial killer out of him, not someone who just needed to jot down his various business or social appointments.

If the real James had wanted to keep a private record of his not-so-innocent activities, from his brothel frequenting to his arsenic eating, and all the hours spent in the bed of his mistress, what kind of book might he have chosen for such thoughts? A brand new notebook, starting on page one with:

"I am Sir Jim and I'm partial to quim"?

Or might the real James - or a hoaxer using a little more imagination than their accusers - have seen some advantage in tucking away anything "not quite nice" in the later pages of an old business ledger or similar, which prying eyes were less likely to come across by chance?

I've said this before, but my late father - whose parents were born in the 1870s - would use any old bit of scrap paper around the house before even thinking of shelling out for a new notebook or diary. And I'm jolly glad he lived by the old adage that if you look after the pennies, the pounds will look after themselves. When the time came, he was able to afford his own care in a private nursing home, with the help of all the little savings he had made on non-essentials throughout his life. He was never 'reduced' to making do; it was a conscious choice.

If Maybrick did ever keep a secret diary, it would have been a conscious choice what he used to keep it secret, and nothing to do with affording the best. What good would the best have done him, if it had attracted unwanted attention?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Tim
Strim
Rim
Trim
Skim
Muslim
Hymn

Maybrick really didn't apply much thought to this, did he?

Are we not meant to believe it was Anne Graham who was so 'dim', that she was unable to think of any word to rhyme with 'Jim' other than 'whim'?

Or MAYbe this woman, who was educated by nuns, seriously thought the real James MAYbrick would have been stuck for another word to rhyme with Jim.

None so dim, eh?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

It's clearly a modern hoax.

That’s Saturday’s line, Wheato. You really are losing it.

[John Wheat]

That’s Saturday’s line, Wheato. You really are losing it.

No anyone who thinks Maybrick wrote the Diary is losing it.

[Lombro2]

Of the 12 threads on the first Maybrick page, all with replies in 2025, Ike started 3 and I started one.

I looked at 2 old threads that were revived this year. One was revived by RJ and one by Ozzy.

Talk about milking the dairy.

[John Wheat]

Of the 12 threads on the first Maybrick page, all with replies in 2025, Ike started 3 and I started one.

I looked at 2 old threads that were revived this year. One was revived by RJ and one by Ozzy.

Talk about milking the dairy.

Yes I know it's getting boring. Too many pointless threads about an obviously fake diary. In all likelihood written by the Barretts.

[caz]

Why would a diarist, who gives his first name, the name of his house, his wife’s name, her lover’s name and his brother’s and his children’s names then bother to disguise his handwriting? Again, we have to come up with some weird explanation but why ignore the obvious one…that it wasn’t written by James Maybrick?

Hi Herlock,

You must know the diary inside out by now, but I haven't read it all the way through for quite some time, so could you remind me where the author gives Maybrick's first name as James? Or his son's name as James? Or his wife's name as Florence? Or the name of her lover - Alfred Brierley?

As you know, I don't personally think the handwriting can reasonably be attributed to James Maybrick, any more than I think it can easily be attributed to any of the usual suspects, even heavily disguised, but facts are facts. If you see any point at all in straying beyond 'one off instance' to the wider textual territory, it's not a bad idea to check what's in it and what isn't, so that all your peripheral arguments are seen to be based on an accurate reading of the content - and not on what you may only have imagined.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Quietly confident on the safe and higher ground…

Just to highlight the “ignoring” and/or the ignorance, we have “one off standpoint” and “one off basis” at the turn of the century in print (1903 and 1919).

How these same people used “one off” in their personal diaries and correspondence going back to when they were born in the middle of the 1800s is beyond me at least, to know or to prove.

I think I’ve heard this type of argument before:

”But they never found a body!”

Well it's like 'bumbling buffoon', isn't it? Until we had examples in print of 'bumbling' from the 1880s, and in Liverpool no less, used as an adjective, we were confidently assured that the word was obsolete by then and could not have been used to describe the ever popular Victorian 'buffoon' or anyone else. Funny how the obsolete b word survived to become as popular by the middle of the next century as the old familiar b word, but that's language for you: funny.

How many other examples of a 'bumbling purveyor' would anyone have expected to find in print, if the diary author had chosen these two words instead? Did the theatre man in Liverpool who put them together in a sentence realise he was at the cutting edge of language in November 1888, and may well have come up with a one off instance of this exact two-word combination?

Clearly, 'bumbling' was used in print to describe a person or persons, a character or personality type, and most likely in conversations and correspondence too, but the examples known to have survived to date are so few in number that nothing useful can be said about who could or could not have been described in that way. There must be literally scores of nouns in use in the 1880s that could have been chosen to follow 'bumbling' depending on the circumstances: bobby, bureaucrat, busybody, butcher, councillor, magistrate, medico, official, purveyor, stationmaster - I could go on [and I frequently do] but you get my drift. If the first word was rarely seen in print back then, with each example describing someone different, the chances of a 'buffoon' popping up as the second word were always going to be negligible, with so many other possibilities all vying with each other for the few opportunities available.

It's not an argument against a hoaxer who was familiar with the modern coupling of the two words and wrongly assumed they'd been commonly seen going out together in Maybrick's day. It's simply pointing out that there was nothing stopping that Liverpool theatre man from describing his "bumbling purveyor" as a "bumbling buffoon" instead. No know-it-all there to inform him it would be decades before anyone had public permission to do so. I wonder what the argument would have been, had he disobeyed this golden rule?

We are now assured, with goalposts groaning from all the shifting, that the 'one off instance' smoking gun is not remotely like the 'bumbling buffoon' silver bullet that went down like a lead balloon.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

You must know the diary inside out by now, but I haven't read it all the way through for quite some time, so could you remind me where the author gives Maybrick's first name as James? Or his son's name as James? Or his wife's name as Florence? Or the name of her lover - Alfred Brierley?

As you know, I don't personally think the handwriting can reasonably be attributed to James Maybrick, any more than I think it can easily be attributed to any of the usual suspects, even heavily disguised, but facts are facts. If you see any point at all in straying beyond 'one off instance' to the wider textual territory, it's not a bad idea to check what's in it and what isn't, so that all your peripheral arguments are seen to be based on an accurate reading of the content - and not on what you may only have imagined.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

I see from the sarcasm that you, like Ike, still see this thread as a closed shop where only certain people should be allowed to post or comment. Or is it just anyone that happens to agree with David Orsam on anything?

He says “I may return to Battlecrease,” he calls himself “Sir Jim” and the diary is dated 1889. He also mentions the Exchange Floor. No one, as far as I’m aware, is ever christened ‘Jim.’ It’s always short for James so we have a man living in a house called Battlecrease in 1889 called James who is familiar with the Exchange. Not hard to work out for anyone looking at the diary for the first time.

You’re right of course that he doesn’t mention his son’s name or his wife’s or Alfred Brierley’s and I was in error to mention them. I’ll stand correcting of course but wasn’t it known elsewhere (other than the diary) that James jnr was known as Bobo? If so then Bobo is mentioned in the diary more than once. It’s also clear that Bobo was a sibling of Gladys. “I worry so over Bobo and Gladys.” Mrs Hammersmith inquired about Gladys and Bobo.

I can’t recall if it’s known that Florence was known as Bunny outside of the diary but it’s clear that the diarist is talking about his unfaithful wife. So, yes I certainly take your point on Florence and Alfred Brierley but my original point was in relation to the pointlessness of disguising handwriting when the author is giving so much information out that clearly reveals his identity.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Revealed in the diary we have…

First name - "Jim" e.g. p.18, 32, 37, 43, 44, 47, 56
Partial surname - "Jimay" on p.53, "it's only May playing his dirty game" p.22, "This Mayspreads Mayhem" p. 23
Name of House - "Battlecrease" p.2
Wife's (nick)name - "Bunny" p.60 & 63
Daughter's name "Gladys" p.1, 6 & 24
Son's (nick)name "Bobo" p.6 & 24
Brother's name "Michael" e.g. p.1
Brother's name - "Edwin" p.5, 25, 58 & 61
Brother's name - "Thomas" p.5 & 47
Brother's name - "William" p. 8

To which we may add:

His doctor "Hopper" p.33 & 58
His place of employment "the Exchange floor" p.46
His employee - "Lowry" p. 8 & 43
His bookkeeper -"Smith" p.3
His best friend "George" p. 7 & 31

The simple point is that, in revealing all this personal information, it would make no sense for him to have been deliberately disguising his handwriting to hide his identity. It seems an unarguable point to me, so nitpicking about whether he gave someone's full name or not is pointless. He freely gave his identity away in his diary, or rather, that forger did.

While we're chatting, do you think that you could respond to the outstanding questions I asked you earlier in the year? A few immediately spring to mind: How did a diary created after 1945 get into Michael Barrett's hands? Or, if you prefer, how did it get into Battlecrease to be discovered by Eddie Lyons? Can you actually hear Alan Gray saying: "You said Anne did it; you're still saying it's all her handwriting" on the 6th/7th November 1994 tape recording? Can you actually hear Barrett saying that he can't turn round and say Anne forged it and this takes time on the 16th August 1994 telephone call? Why did you previously say that the diary transcript was prepared by the Barretts after 13th April 1992 but you now say that it was prepared before this date? What made you change your opinion? That's for starters. Thanks in advance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well it's like 'bumbling buffoon', isn't it? Until we had examples in print of 'bumbling' from the 1880s, and in Liverpool no less, used as an adjective, we were confidently assured that the word was obsolete by then and could not have been used to describe the ever popular Victorian 'buffoon' or anyone else. Funny how the obsolete b word survived to become as popular by the middle of the next century as the old familiar b word, but that's language for you: funny.

How many other examples of a 'bumbling purveyor' would anyone have expected to find in print, if the diary author had chosen these two words instead? Did the theatre man in Liverpool who put them together in a sentence realise he was at the cutting edge of language in November 1888, and may well have come up with a one off instance of this exact two-word combination?

Clearly, 'bumbling' was used in print to describe a person or persons, a character or personality type, and most likely in conversations and correspondence too, but the examples known to have survived to date are so few in number that nothing useful can be said about who could or could not have been described in that way. There must be literally scores of nouns in use in the 1880s that could have been chosen to follow 'bumbling' depending on the circumstances: bobby, bureaucrat, busybody, butcher, councillor, magistrate, medico, official, purveyor, stationmaster - I could go on [and I frequently do] but you get my drift. If the first word was rarely seen in print back then, with each example describing someone different, the chances of a 'buffoon' popping up as the second word were always going to be negligible, with so many other possibilities all vying with each other for the few opportunities available.

It's not an argument against a hoaxer who was familiar with the modern coupling of the two words and wrongly assumed they'd been commonly seen going out together in Maybrick's day. It's simply pointing out that there was nothing stopping that Liverpool theatre man from describing his "bumbling purveyor" as a "bumbling buffoon" instead. No know-it-all there to inform him it would be decades before anyone had public permission to do so. I wonder what the argument would have been, had he disobeyed this golden rule?

We are now assured, with goalposts groaning from all the shifting, that the 'one off instance' smoking gun is not remotely like the 'bumbling buffoon' silver bullet that went down like a lead balloon.

Love,

Caz
X

I have to wonder Caz, why do you attribute the words "bumbling purveyor" to a "theatre man in Liverpool"? Who are you referring to? To me, it looks like those words were written by a man in London.

Who was the "bumbling purveyor" in question and why was he "bumbling"? If you can't answer this question, it may be that the word "bumbling" meant something different in this usage to what it means in "bumbling buffoon". In which case, it would be misleading to say "Clearly, 'bumbling' was used in print to describe a person or persons, a character or personality type". What seems far more clear to me, because we have it in print, in a dictionary, is that the word "bumbling" to describe an incompetent person was obsolete in England in 1888 except in some regional dialects.

Further, the expression "bumbling buffoon" is twentieth century. While "one off instance" is twentieth century, after the second world war.

You might, incidentally, want to ask Lombro for his 1919 example of "one off basis" because, as you say, facts is facts, and I'm sure you'll want to apply the same rigour to Lombro's posts as you do to mine and RJ Palmer's, in case he's ‘imagined’ it.

[Lombro2]

It was 1921. Easy enough to find these days.

[caz]

Hello Caz,

I see from the sarcasm that you, like Ike, still see this thread as a closed shop where only certain people should be allowed to post or comment. Or is it just anyone that happens to agree with David Orsam on anything?

He says “I may return to Battlecrease,” he calls himself “Sir Jim” and the diary is dated 1889. He also mentions the Exchange Floor. No one, as far as I’m aware, is ever christened ‘Jim.’ It’s always short for James so we have a man living in a house called Battlecrease in 1889 called James who is familiar with the Exchange. Not hard to work out for anyone looking at the diary for the first time.

You’re right of course that he doesn’t mention his son’s name or his wife’s or Alfred Brierley’s and I was in error to mention them. I’ll stand correcting of course but wasn’t it known elsewhere (other than the diary) that James jnr was known as Bobo? If so then Bobo is mentioned in the diary more than once. It’s also clear that Bobo was a sibling of Gladys. “I worry so over Bobo and Gladys.” Mrs Hammersmith inquired about Gladys and Bobo.

I can’t recall if it’s known that Florence was known as Bunny outside of the diary but it’s clear that the diarist is talking about his unfaithful wife. So, yes I certainly take your point on Florence and Alfred Brierley but my original point was in relation to the pointlessness of disguising handwriting when the author is giving so much information out that clearly reveals his identity.

Whatever.

[caz]

I have to wonder Caz, why do you attribute the words "bumbling purveyor" to a "theatre man in Liverpool"? Who are you referring to? To me, it looks like those words were written by a man in London.

Who was the "bumbling purveyor" in question and why was he "bumbling"? If you can't answer this question, it may be that the word "bumbling" meant something different in this usage to what it means in "bumbling buffoon". In which case, it would be misleading to say "Clearly, 'bumbling' was used in print to describe a person or persons, a character or personality type". What seems far more clear to me, because we have it in print, in a dictionary, is that the word "bumbling" to describe an incompetent person was obsolete in England in 1888 except in some regional dialects.

Further, the expression "bumbling buffoon" is twentieth century. While "one off instance" is twentieth century, after the second world war.

You might, incidentally, want to ask Lombro for his 1919 example of "one off basis" because, as you say, facts is facts, and I'm sure you'll want to apply the same rigour to Lombro's posts as you do to mine and RJ Palmer's, in case he's ‘imagined’ it.

You surely must have read Gary Barnett's thread over at the forums, entitled 'The bumbling impresario'. It was referred to a fair bit when we were all here just three or four months ago discussing how 'obsolete' the b word wasn't in Maybrick's Liverpool. How could you have contributed without even bothering to see the examples in print? Sometimes words fail me...

The man who broke the mould (he was a true one-off) by describing someone as a Bumbling Purveyor of inane doggerel in 1888 was John Thomas Pengelly Roach, the propietor of the Grand Theatre of Variety in Paradise Street, Liverpool.

Quite a character it would seem, and well known to Liverpool society. He lost his licence in Liverpool in 1892 and subsequently became bankrupt, but he later continued his theatrical career in London.

The reason he lost his licence? Something to do with there being, allegedly, up to 50 prostitutes at his theatre on occasion.

He deserves looking into, I believe.

You can revisit the various examples Gary found here:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/persons-of-interest-or-actual-suspects/james-maybrick/the-maybrick-diary-forum/621837-the-bumbling-impressario

[caz]

When Roach continued his theatrical career in London, did he get blank looks from everyone if he dared to use the word "bumbling" ever again?

Did he check in a dictionary and feel really embarrassed to find it was obsolete down south by 1888?

Have I just arrived on a different planet??