Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who was the author of the 'Maybrick' diary? Some options.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by caz View Post
    Hi John,

    I do think that would be slightly less problematic. Of course, it doesn't fit with the known dates for the red diary and David's as yet unsupported theory that Mike was telling the truth in January 1995 about how he acquired and used the guardbook after the red diary proved unsuitable.

    Mike claimed he and Anne had used the guardbook to write out the diary text in 11 days, then left it a while after completion because TD was severely ill at the time. TD died in August 1991.

    The red diary was not even enquired about or received until March 1992.

    So why would the guardbook have suddenly been considered unsuitable, and an alternative sought, several months after completion?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Hi Caz,

    Yes, very important point about TD. Thus, in the affidavit, Mike remarks:

    "During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony with Tony being severely ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990"

    On this basis, the Diary must have been completed in the summer of 1991 at the latest which, of course, can in no way be reconciled with David's theory, involving the Diary being completed in the spring of 1992, I.e. at least 6 months later.

    Now, at a stretch, you might accept that Mike, during his affidavit, got mixed up over a few dates. However, I can see no way that he would have got confused about the Diary being completed before Tony died, especially as he also recalls the fact that the project was put on hold on account of TD's illness.

    But if the affidavit is broadly accurate, why would he lie about this incident? In fact, why mention TD at all, considering that he seemed eager to claim most of the credit for himself? It's also worth bearing in mind that the affidavit was submitted just 3 years after the Diary was made public, not 30 years, making it even more difficult to explain how he could have made such a fundamental factual error.

    However, David's theory has a certain neatness about it: the red book being acquired in March, shortly followed by the photograph album, resulting in the phone call to Doreen in April. Moreover, if the Diary had been completed in the summer of 1991, why were efforts still being made in March to acquire a Diary? Even if you argue that the purpose of this initiative was to determine how easy it was to obtain the basic materials for a hoax, it doesn't explain a delay of of at least 6 months.

    Nonetheless, it's important not to be selective about the parts of Mike's affidavit we choose to accept, and those we elect to reject. In other words, it's obviously not objective to totally dismiss the TD anomaly, simply because it doesn't fit with a particular theory, especially as the inconsistency is difficult to explain. I would also add that there is no proof Mike purchased the Victorian photograph album, let alone the time of purchase, or the method of acquisition.

    If I may, I'll just make a few comments about the alternative Battlecrease theory. Personally I have a number of issues with this argument. Firstly, the only evidence for a diary being found under the floorboards rests with Alan Davies. However, this is hearsay evidence at best: He wasn't working at the house, it was a story related to him by Brian Rawes, who also wasn't inside the house at the time of the alleged discovery as he was the driver, with the story being related to him by one of the electricians. Moreover, all he recalled was being told that "I've found something", so not necessarily a book, let alone a diary.

    Secondly, a find at Battlecrease would suggest an old forgery, whereas I believe the Diary to be a modern forgery, if only on account of the "one-off" problem.

    Thirdly, if Mike had stolen the Diary from one of the electricians, or tricked him out of it, I see no way that Mike would have subsequently confronted Eddie Lyons on any pretext. More likely he would have fled the city under an assumed identity!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by John G View Post
      However, David's theory has a certain neatness about it: the red book being acquired in March, shortly followed by the photograph album, resulting in the phone call to Doreen in April.
      Morning John,

      The first phone call to Doreen's literary agency was on March 9th, the second on March 10th. The telephone request for a Victorian diary must have been made at roughly the same time, but Mike did not receive the red 1891 diary until March 27th or 28th. David's theory is that the guardbook was then very quickly acquired at an auction on March 31st. By April 8th the meeting with Doreen and the finished diary had been set for Monday April 13th.

      Moreover, if the Diary had been completed in the summer of 1991, why were efforts still being made in March to acquire a Diary? Even if you argue that the purpose of this initiative was to determine how easy it was to obtain the basic materials for a hoax, it doesn't explain a delay of of at least 6 months.
      Quite, but Mike's claim was that the diary was completed - as in handwritten into the guardbook over the course of 11 days - while TD was severely ill, in which case he'd have had all the basic materials, including the pen and ink, before August 1991. Yet the point of claiming it took 11 days was presumably to sandwich the physical creation between the rejection of the red diary/acquisition of the guardbook, and the trip to London with the latter. That was the only way he could use the red diary as evidence of a failed attempt to obtain something suitable to house the diary. Had he been thinking more clearly, he might have had the sense to put the auction and guardbook before the red diary, and claim the latter was a last-minute attempt to obtain something more credible - an actual diary - because he'd had misgivings for some time over the guardbook they had used.

      Nonetheless, it's important not to be selective about the parts of Mike's affidavit we choose to accept, and those we elect to reject.
      I totally agree, which is why I would need some really good independent evidence for anything Mike claimed. The red diary comes the closest, perhaps, but is it enough on its own?

      If I may, I'll just make a few comments about the alternative Battlecrease theory.
      Be my guest.

      Personally I have a number of issues with this argument. Firstly, the only evidence for a diary being found under the floorboards rests with Alan Davies. However, this is hearsay evidence at best: He wasn't working at the house, it was a story related to him by Brian Rawes, who also wasn't inside the house at the time of the alleged discovery as he was the driver, with the story being related to him by one of the electricians. Moreover, all he recalled was being told that "I've found something", so not necessarily a book, let alone a diary.
      I'm not sure about Brian Rawes relating the story to Alan Davies. Brian first heard about it from Eddie Lyons in July 1992 and got the impression it was a recent find [although "I found something" sounds identical to "I've found something", so Brian could have 'heard' the latter and misinterpreted it]. At the time, Davies was on sick leave following his car accident in the June, and was officially off work for six months. Assuming he was back in the loop in the December, and told Alan Dodgson about the diary, thinking it may still be looking for an owner, when did he first hear about it and who told him? On Tuesday March 17th, 1992, Davies worked for two hours for Portus & Rhodes on the Skelmersdale contract, so there's at least a possibility that he heard some talk about it then, a week and a day after the floorboards were lifted in Battlecrease. This is something I hope can be explored further.

      Secondly, a find at Battlecrease would suggest an old forgery, whereas I believe the Diary to be a modern forgery, if only on account of the "one-off" problem.
      An old forgery would be anything before the late 1980s, when certain details in the diary text were apparently published for the first time, so it's not 'one off' that's the problem if this expression could have been used as early as, say, the 1940s-1960s [I know Gareth will object most strongly, but he was wrong about 'topping oneself' and 'give me a call'].

      Thirdly, if Mike had stolen the Diary from one of the electricians, or tricked him out of it, I see no way that Mike would have subsequently confronted Eddie Lyons on any pretext. More likely he would have fled the city under an assumed identity!
      I'm not sure I've heard that one before, that Mike pinched it from an electrician. But if there was some 'honour amongst thieves' agreement between them to stay mum about when Mike acquired the diary and from whom, that would certainly explain Mike's lightning fast reaction to hearing that Eddie had asked Feldy what his confession [to taking the diary from the house] was worth.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      Last edited by caz; 02-27-2018, 04:24 AM.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post
        An old forgery would be anything before the late 1980s, when certain details in the diary text were apparently published for the first time, so it's not 'one off' that's the problem if this expression could have been used as early as, say, the 1940s-1960s [I know Gareth will object most strongly, but he was wrong about 'topping oneself' and 'give me a call'].
        I wasn't exactly "wrong" about either, Caz, in that the point I've made relates to when these phrases would have penetrated into routine parlance such that they could be deployed in the throwaway manner in which they are used in the diary.

        For example, when would "top myself" have passed into everyday use such that Mr/Mrs Ordinary would use it to refer to suicide in general, as opposed its being a slang term used by a criminal to refer to hanging himself? The phrase "give her a call" wasn't initially picked up by me, incidentally, but I still believe it significant in that the casual usage of the phrase "giving someone a call" most likely attained prevalence in the everyday lexicon only when easy access to telephones had become the norm.

        And we still have to account for "one-off instance" (as opposed to a one-off thing/person) and "spreading mayhem" (in the sense of confusion and chaos vs bodily harm), both of which senses appear to have achieved widespread popular currency only in the latter third of the 20th Century. Individual phrases aside, my main point is that we have to account for all of them appearing in a comparatively short text composed any earlier than that. I've yet to see anything like a satisfactory explanation for this.
        Last edited by Sam Flynn; 02-27-2018, 05:23 AM.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post
          Morning John,

          The first phone call to Doreen's literary agency was on March 9th, the second on March 10th. The telephone request for a Victorian diary must have been made at roughly the same time, but Mike did not receive the red 1891 diary until March 27th or 28th. David's theory is that the guardbook was then very quickly acquired at an auction on March 31st. By April 8th the meeting with Doreen and the finished diary had been set for Monday April 13th.



          Quite, but Mike's claim was that the diary was completed - as in handwritten into the guardbook over the course of 11 days - while TD was severely ill, in which case he'd have had all the basic materials, including the pen and ink, before August 1991. Yet the point of claiming it took 11 days was presumably to sandwich the physical creation between the rejection of the red diary/acquisition of the guardbook, and the trip to London with the latter. That was the only way he could use the red diary as evidence of a failed attempt to obtain something suitable to house the diary. Had he been thinking more clearly, he might have had the sense to put the auction and guardbook before the red diary, and claim the latter was a last-minute attempt to obtain something more credible - an actual diary - because he'd had misgivings for some time over the guardbook they had used.



          I totally agree, which is why I would need some really good independent evidence for anything Mike claimed. The red diary comes the closest, perhaps, but is it enough on its own?



          Be my guest.



          I'm not sure about Brian Rawes relating the story to Alan Davies. Brian first heard about it from Eddie Lyons in July 1992 and got the impression it was a recent find [although "I found something" sounds identical to "I've found something", so Brian could have 'heard' the latter and misinterpreted it]. At the time, Davies was on sick leave following his car accident in the June, and was officially off work for six months. Assuming he was back in the loop in the December, and told Alan Dodgson about the diary, thinking it may still be looking for an owner, when did he first hear about it and who told him? On Tuesday March 17th, 1992, Davies worked for two hours for Portus & Rhodes on the Skelmersdale contract, so there's at least a possibility that he heard some talk about it then, a week and a day after the floorboards were lifted in Battlecrease. This is something I hope can be explored further.



          An old forgery would be anything before the late 1980s, when certain details in the diary text were apparently published for the first time, so it's not 'one off' that's the problem if this expression could have been used as early as, say, the 1940s-1960s [I know Gareth will object most strongly, but he was wrong about 'topping oneself' and 'give me a call'].



          I'm not sure I've heard that one before, that Mike pinched it from an electrician. But if there was some 'honour amongst thieves' agreement between them to stay mum about when Mike acquired the diary and from whom, that would certainly explain Mike's lightning fast reaction to hearing that Eddie had asked Feldy what his confession [to taking the diary from the house] was worth.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          An old forgery would be anything before the late 1980s, when certain details in the diary text were apparently published for the first time, so it's not 'one off' that's the problem if this expression could have been used as early as, say, the 1940s-1960s [I know Gareth will object most strongly, but he was wrong about 'topping oneself' and 'give me a call'].
          lets see here. not by maybrick, so maybe its a Victorian hoax. oops, not a Victorian hoax, but its still an old hoax. old hoax defined by "before the late 80s". lol.

          at least your getting warmer.
          Last edited by Abby Normal; 02-27-2018, 06:40 AM.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            I wasn't exactly "wrong" about either, Caz, in that the point I've made relates to when these phrases would have penetrated into routine parlance such that they could be deployed in the throwaway manner in which they are used in the diary.

            For example, when would "top myself" have passed into everyday use such that Mr/Mrs Ordinary would use it to refer to suicide in general, as opposed its being a slang term used by a criminal to refer to hanging himself? The phrase "give her a call" wasn't initially picked up by me, incidentally, but I still believe it significant in that the casual usage of the phrase "giving someone a call" most likely attained prevalence in the everyday lexicon only when easy access to telephones had become the norm.

            And we still have to account for "one-off instance" (as opposed to a one-off thing/person) and "spreading mayhem" (in the sense of confusion and chaos vs bodily harm), both of which senses appear to have achieved widespread popular currency only in the latter third of the 20th Century. Individual phrases aside, my main point is that we have to account for all of them appearing in a comparatively short text composed any earlier than that. I've yet to see anything like a satisfactory explanation for this.
            Hi Sam

            The phrase "give her a call" wasn't initially picked up by me, incidentally, but I still believe it significant in that the casual usage of the phrase "giving someone a call" most likely attained prevalence in the everyday lexicon only when easy access to telephones had become the norm.
            I'm not sure if I was the one who initially picked up on this one, but I did mention it at one time, and I totally agree with you on it.

            "call on her", "give her a visit" perhaps, but "give her a call"?? no.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • Who did write it isn't as important as who didn't, and it certainly wasn't James Maybrick.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                Who did write it isn't as important as who didn't, and it certainly wasn't James Maybrick.
                That's all true Harry.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  I'm not sure if I was the one who initially picked up on this one.
                  You may well have been, Abby, and I still think it's a valid suggestion.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    I wasn't exactly "wrong" about either, Caz, in that the point I've made relates to when these phrases would have penetrated into routine parlance such that they could be deployed in the throwaway manner in which they are used in the diary.

                    For example, when would "top myself" have passed into everyday use such that Mr/Mrs Ordinary would use it to refer to suicide in general, as opposed its being a slang term used by a criminal to refer to hanging himself?
                    Not sure I follow your logic here, Gareth. The diarist was not claiming to be Mr/Mrs Ordinary [and you don't know his/her real identity in any case], but one of the worst criminals in history, mingling with all those low, semi-vicious denizens of the East End, and absolutely referring to hanging himself and saving the hangman a job!

                    The phrase "give her a call" wasn't initially picked up by me, incidentally, but I still believe it significant in that the casual usage of the phrase "giving someone a call" most likely attained prevalence in the everyday lexicon only when easy access to telephones had become the norm.
                    Right, so you still imagine your Mr/Mrs Ordinary used the phrase in the sense of their ripper chuckling to himself at the thought of telephoning Queen Victoria to brag about his cleverness, even though Gary Barnett found several thousand examples from the right period, and before, of people 'giving someone a call' in the traditional sense of paying them a visit? And were your Mr/Mrs Ordinary aware that the real James Maybrick did have easy access to his own telephone in any case?

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      lets see here. not by maybrick, so maybe its a Victorian hoax. oops, not a Victorian hoax, but its still an old hoax. old hoax defined by "before the late 80s". lol.

                      at least your getting warmer.
                      Oh grow up, Abby, and do try to write a coherent sentence in decent English occasionally, or Gareth will think you wrote the diary yourself.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                        Hi Sam

                        I'm not sure if I was the one who initially picked up on this one, but I did mention it at one time, and I totally agree with you on it.

                        "call on her", "give her a visit" perhaps, but "give her a call"?? no.
                        You are quite simply wrong about this one, Abby. Give it up.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Hi Gareth,

                          Let me ask you something. Are you still labouring under the possible misapprehension that the diarist should have displayed much better spelling and grammar, and isn't it faintly arrogant to presume what their intention was and then conclude that it failed miserably?

                          Florence is the real villain of the piece. It is her promiscuity which has generated gentleman Jim's blood lust and given him the motive to become a monster. In a fitting climax, she is the one charged with killing the beast, using poison – the woman's weapon – and ironically becomes the most reviled woman in England in 1889 as a result of snuffing out the most reviled character of 1888 – none other than Jack the Ripper.

                          So - was this really a serious attempt in your view to frame the real James Maybrick for the crimes? Or is it more probable that the intention all along was to create a spoof interweaving the two cases, which necessarily involved combining JM with JtR, to produce a caricature of the real person, who called himself "Sir Jim"?

                          In using the first person singular, to give this fictional character a free hand to create his own private, rambling narrative, as a sad, none too bright nobody, who thinks he deserves to be elevated to the peerage for snuffing out a handful of penniless drabs, was the diarist making a huge error of judgement in your opinion by not employing someone who could have tidied up the spelling and grammar to perfection, and polished up the funny little rhymes, until the whole effort shone with literary ability and creative talent? Would that not have sucked the impure soul out of the diary and left it sterile?

                          Did you, as a younger lad, long to take your red pen to James Joyce? And no, I'm not even beginning to compare the diarist's literary and creative abilities with Joyce's, because we don't know what they were, as the character drawn is of - 'a sad, none too bright nobody, who thinks he deserves to be elevated to the peerage for snuffing out a handful of penniless drabs'.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post
                            Oh grow up, Abby, and do try to write a coherent sentence in decent English occasionally, or Gareth will think you wrote the diary yourself.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            And you would still think it was an old hoax.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • Hello Caz
                              Originally posted by caz View Post
                              Let me ask you something. Are you still labouring under the possible misapprehension that the diarist should have displayed much better spelling and grammar
                              All I can say is that the diarist displays neither good spelling nor grammar, despite obvious and repeated attempts at grandiloquence and sophistication. A half-competent writer really wouldn't - or shouldn't - have done this.
                              and isn't it faintly arrogant to presume what their intention was and then conclude that it failed miserably?
                              I don't think it arrogant to suggest that the diarist(s) repeatedly failed in their attempts at affecting a "Victorian" voice, when the distinct impression I get from the diary is that the writer(s) tried for a moon-shot but ended up hitting the garden fence.
                              So - was this really a serious attempt in your view to frame the real James Maybrick for the crimes?
                              That is by far the more likely scenario, I'd suggest.
                              Or is it more probable that the intention all along was to create a spoof interweaving the two cases, which necessarily involved combining JM with JtR, to produce a caricature of the real person, who called himself "Sir Jim"?
                              I can't see why anyone, other than someone in the immediate circle of James and/or Florence Maybrick, would have been motivated to do so.
                              was the diarist making a huge error of judgement in your opinion by not employing someone who could have tidied up the spelling and grammar to perfection and polished up the funny little rhymes
                              Perhaps, within the limits of their judgement, they didn't see - or SEEN - that there was much wrong with it.
                              until the whole effort shone with literary ability and creative talent?
                              I'm not suggesting that it should have shone with literary merit or talent, only that one would expect a half-competent forger (or Maybrick-caricaturist, for that matter) to have produced something a little less shambolic.
                              Would that not have sucked the impure soul out of the diary and left it sterile?
                              Quite the opposite. If the elementary errors had been ironed out, the whole thing would make for a more lively read; personally, I get worn out after reading only a few pages because of all the clunkers they contain. It's like trying to sprint barefoot over jagged rocks.
                              Did you, as a younger lad, long to take your red pen to James Joyce?
                              Never, not least because Joyce's language and imagery is so vivid. I suspect, however, that if the diarist had decided to forge a Joycean novel, the result would have been more Finnegan's Wack than Finnegan's Wake
                              Last edited by Sam Flynn; 02-28-2018, 05:19 AM.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                                Right, so you still imagine your Mr/Mrs Ordinary used the phrase in the sense of their ripper chuckling to himself at the thought of telephoning Queen Victoria to brag about his cleverness, even though Gary Barnett found several thousand examples from the right period, and before, of people 'giving someone a call' in the traditional sense of paying them a visit?
                                I'm sure that the diarist imagined James Maybrick thinking about travelling down from Liverpool to pop into Windsor Castle
                                And were your Mr/Mrs Ordinary aware that the real James Maybrick did have easy access to his own telephone in any case?
                                My point relates not to the possibility of a few private individuals owning a telephone in the LVP, but to when the phrase "give him/her a call" became a widespread term for communicating by telephone, as opposed to "dialling", "telephoning" or "ringing" them.
                                Last edited by Sam Flynn; 02-28-2018, 05:34 AM.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X