View Single Post
  #18  
Old 02-04-2018, 03:36 PM
phantom phantom is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 23
Default

[quote=Chris Jones;439925]

Secondly, it was written by Michael Maybrick. This is a very unlikely view, but it has to be dealt with following the publication of Bruce Robinson’s brilliant, but deeply flawed book. He suggests that Michael wrote the diary to frame his brother. This of course, doesn’t explain why he didn’t write the diary in James’s handwriting or why he hid the diary if he wanted it to be discovered. The book also contains numerous factual errors in relation to the Maybrick story (which I have previously outlined in an article for the Whitechapel Society journal). These factual errors are so damning that I feel that this viewpoint has little credibility.


Hi Chris

Thanks for the post and info!

May I tentatively offer another scenario – which is similar to the Michael Maybrick option.

That is, the diary may have been written by the murderer i.e. JTR (but someone other than Michael Maybrick) who was pretending or fantasising that he was James Maybrick. IMO highly unlikely but thought I’d mention it to cover all bases.

IMO the diary is either written by James Maybrick or is a modern post 1987 forgery.

I don’t exclude the old forgery scenario but the ‘tin match box empty’ text is problematic and I remember Martin Fido saying something like the description of the murders is not what someone would come up with in say the 1920’s.

For example, the diary author (and watch) takes credit for the canonical 5 where this is a relatively modern understanding. If someone was to forge the diary pre-publication of MacNaughton memorandum you’d expect them to include other Whitechapel murder victims e.g. Emma Smith.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote