Where do current experts stand on the Diary?

[Sally]

Hi Sally,

It's a reasonable observation on the surface, but why on earth would a forger, or forgers, hoping to do better than Kujau and stay out of prison, do the research required to get the paper and ink right this time, then make absolutely no attempt to copy their chosen subject's handwriting? They must have known the scrutiny to which their finished product would be subjected, if they used the Hitler Diaries as their 'how not to' guide.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Well, if the Diary is a forgery, then I think it's fairly obvious that the forger(s) thought quite carefully about what they were doing; so the mismatch between the Diary script and Maybrick's handwriting would be a bit of a puzzle.

There are a couple of things to say though, I think.

Firstly - you'll be in a much better position to answer this than I, I should think - would the forger(s) have known what Maybrick's handwriting looked like? Would they have had access to a reasonable sample from which to make a copy in the first place?

The other point is that it's incredibly difficult to forge the handwriting of another at length with any degree of real conviction. Yes, superficially, it may convince; but under analysis by somebody trained to look for signs of forgery, it would almost inevitably fall down.

Kujau had access to Hitler's handwriting and had practiced copying for some years before the diaries were forged. Even so, his very good emulation of Hitler's handwriting actually wasn't good enough to convince. The handwriting in his diaries intially passed muster under analysis because the comparative samples used in analysis were also his forgeries.

Talk about luck.

The fact that the script in the Maybrick Diary doesn't match Maybrick's known handwriting doesn't seem to have hindered the Diary much in any case - as you will know, psychologists and graphologists alike (some of them quite learned, I believe - the psychologists, not the graphologists, I mean) have stated unequivocally that the Diary demonstrates a disturbed mind that might very well have belonged to Jack the Ripper.

Thus, I think if you were a forger, and you didn't have access to Maybrick's handwriting; and/or you were unaware that any samples of Maybrick's handwriting suvived, or weren't an expert forger confident that your emulation of Maybrick's handwriting would be successful - you might have opted for your own handwriting instead.

If the Diary is a modern forgery, it hasn't been entirely unsuccessful, has it? No, it hasn't made a vast fortune for its creators - which is universally accepted as genuine it may well have done - but its origin is still disputed, decades later.

I don't personally believe that the Diary was written by Maybrick; nor that he was Jack the Ripper - but I'm open to other possibilities. It could be a modern fogery, or an old hoax. Either way, I'd be interested to know the truth one day.

[pinkmoon]

Hi Caz
Well, if the Diary is a forgery, then I think it's fairly obvious that the forger(s) thought quite carefully about what they were doing; so the mismatch between the Diary script and Maybrick's handwriting would be a bit of a puzzle.

There are a couple of things to say though, I think.

Firstly - you'll be in a much better position to answer this than I, I should think - would the forger(s) have known what Maybrick's handwriting looked like? Would they have had access to a reasonable sample from which to make a copy in the first place?

The other point is that it's incredibly difficult to forge the handwriting of another at length with any degree of real conviction. Yes, superficially, it may convince; but under analysis by somebody trained to look for signs of forgery, it would almost inevitably fall down.

Kujau had access to Hitler's handwriting and had practiced copying for some years before the diaries were forged. Even so, his very good emulation of Hitler's handwriting actually wasn't good enough to convince. The handwriting in his diaries intially passed muster under analysis because the comparative samples used in analysis were also his forgeries.

Talk about luck.

The fact that the script in the Maybrick Diary doesn't match Maybrick's known handwriting doesn't seem to have hindered the Diary much in any case - as you will know, psychologists and graphologists alike (some of them quite learned, I believe - the psychologists, not the graphologists, I mean) have stated unequivocally that the Diary demonstrates a disturbed mind that might very well have belonged to Jack the Ripper.

Thus, I think if you were a forger, and you didn't have access to Maybrick's handwriting; and/or you were unaware that any samples of Maybrick's handwriting suvived, or weren't an expert forger confident that your emulation of Maybrick's handwriting would be successful - you might have opted for your own handwriting instead.

If the Diary is a modern forgery, it hasn't been entirely unsuccessful, has it? No, it hasn't made a vast fortune for its creators - which is universally accepted as genuine it may well have done - but its origin is still disputed, decades later.

I don't personally believe that the Diary was written by Maybrick; nor that he was Jack the Ripper - but I'm open to other possibilities. It could be a modern fogery, or an old hoax. Either way, I'd be interested to know the truth one day.

I think it is an old forgery which was going to be sold to newspaper when Florence was hung could the diary be a rough draft that was then going to be copied up all neat and tidy in a nice new book with the hand writing to match maybricks?

[Kaz]

I think it is an old forgery which was going to be sold to newspaper when Florence was hung could the diary be a rough draft that was then going to be copied up all neat and tidy in a nice new book with the hand writing to match maybricks?

Doesn't seem plausible, why not still have it published, flo was spared the noose but was never found 'not guilty' of the crime?

You think the diary came out of battlecrease so who did write it? And why did they goto the lengths of putting arsenic in the folds of it? Why not sign it off 'James Maybrick'? What are the chances of a fraudster fooling one of the best handwriting experts (Hannah koren)?

The handwriting doesn't prove JM didn't write the diary, its perfectly plausible he had a split personality, and where is all this handwriting of his anyway???

[Sally]

You think the diary came out of battlecrease so who did write it? And why did they goto the lengths of putting arsenic in the folds of it? Why not sign it off 'James Maybrick'? What are the chances of a fraudster fooling one of the best handwriting experts (Hannah koren)?

The handwriting doesn't prove JM didn't write the diary, its perfectly plausible he had a split personality, and where is all this handwriting of his anyway???

The handwriting pretty much does prove that 'JM' didn't write the diary, I'm afraid - unless you wish to view this with the eye of faith. It doesn't matter whether he had a 'split personality' or not; there would still be signs of concurrence between the handwriting of his personalities; and a person trained to see those similarities - not a graphologist - would see them.

Hannah Koren based her verdict on graphology. She's a graphologist. Graphology isn't a science - it doesn't even have a coherent method, since opinions vary on exactly which handwriting charactersitics signfy which personality traits.

For anybody to decide that the person who wrote the Diary was a serial killer is untenable, and little more than a parlour trick. I see it as akin to Astrology. Even if there were a proven correlation between handwriting and personality, the very best that could be hoped for would be general trends.

The Diary script doesn't match Maybrick's known handwriting as far as I'm aware. That's the bottom line.

[The Good Michael]

Hannah Koren based her verdict on graphology. She's a graphologist. Graphology isn't a science - it doesn't even have a coherent method, since opinions vary on exactly which handwriting charactersitics signfy which personality traits.

I agree. It's akin to fortune-telling, speaking with the dead, and ghost-hunting. It's all based on belief, but there's no science behind any of it.

Mike

[Haskins]

I also agree that the handwriting discrepancy is a pretty difficult barrier to overcome. My own opinion is that the diary is almost certainly not the genuine diary of JM. But there is just enough room for doubt to keep this whole topic interesting!

[Sally]

Hi Haskins,

I also agree that the handwriting discrepancy is a pretty difficult barrier to overcome. My own opinion is that the diary is almost certainly not the genuine diary of JM. But there is just enough room for doubt to keep this whole topic interesting!

Not for me - at least, not doubt over whether James Maybrick wrote the Diary. In that respect, it's a forgery. Having said that though, there are questions over its origins - and that's interesting in itself.

Mike -

I agree. It's akin to fortune-telling, speaking with the dead, and ghost-hunting. It's all based on belief, but there's no science behind any of it.

Mike

Indeed: and without the faith of the believers, those who make a living at it would have to find something else to do. I constantly wish that people would employ their critical faculties when presented with this sort of thing.

[pinkmoon]

PM,

I think I see where you're coming from....I think also that Paul Feldman possibly made a discovery that didn't fit in with his scenario and possibly chose to believe only what he wanted to believe.

Graham

Hi Graham I think Mr Feldman wanted so much for the diary to be genuine he didn't follow up some leads as vigorously as others.

[pinkmoon]

Doesn't seem plausible, why not still have it published, flo was spared the noose but was never found 'not guilty' of the crime?

You think the diary came out of battlecrease so who did write it? And why did they goto the lengths of putting arsenic in the folds of it? Why not sign it off 'James Maybrick'? What are the chances of a fraudster fooling one of the best handwriting experts (Hannah koren)?

The handwriting doesn't prove JM didn't write the diary, its perfectly plausible he had a split personality, and where is all this handwriting of his anyway???

Have to remember the pages in the front of the book were cut out so it's quite possible maybrick did use it for some purpose so that would account for the arsenic traces.If it was a rough draft maybe our forger got cold feet when he or she realised they couldn't copy maybricks handwriting .

[Graham]

The powder found between the leaves of the book wasn't arsenic; it was, according to Dr Nicholas Eastaugh who examined the paper and ink of the 'Diary', "Bone black". This is a carbonaceous material made from the incineration of bones and its main industrial use was as a pigment for paint. It also had a medicinal use in Victorian times: as an anecdote for strychnine poisoning. James Maybrick was addicted to both arsenic and strychnine. When I first read this in Feldman's book, it occurred to me straight away that even if JM didn't write the 'Diary', then either the book itself had at sometime been in his possession; or the writer if it wasn't JM was incredibly thorough; or it was an incredible coincidence. I think the presence of the bone black is in itself almost proof positive that the book had at one time been in Battlecrease House. JM, it seems, was not only a drug-addict but also something of a hypochondriac.

The handwriting is a puzzle. I think that it is highly likely (to me, at least) that it is not that of James Maybrick. It seems that whoever wrote the 'Diary' made virtually no attempt to copy JM's handwriting if we compare it to the existing samples of it. I wonder why? Feldman said that JM could possibly have had multiple personalities that amongst other things was manifested in an ability to write in a number of different hands. It's a weak argument, I feel.
Take a look at the genuine samples of JM's hand per Feldman's and Caz's book and draw your own conclusions. Melvin Harris claimed to have actually found the person who wrote the 'Diary'.........

The forger of the Hitler Diaries apparently spent years in his attempts to reproduce Hitler's handwriting, yet failed to convince the experts. The writer of the Ripper 'Diary' seems to have made no attempt whatsoever to reproduce Maybrick's hand. Speaking purely personally, I think that this fact in itself suggests that the 'Diary' was not written with a view to making a profit; even 120+ years ago comparison of handwriting was recognised as a legitimate investigative tool, and had the 'Diary' been presented as the work of James Maybrick a.k.a. Jack The Ripper, it would have been pooh-poohed on the spot. However, the 'Diary' does contain a lot of somewhat specialist knowledge about both James Maybrick and the Ripper crimes; especially the former. I think it virtually beyond argument that whoever wrote it knew JM very well indeed, either as a relative, a friend or an employee. Plenty of scope for discussion and theorising there!

The 'Diary' must have been written for some reason. Just what that reason was I personally can't yet fathom. A means to support Florence Maybrick by showing the world that her husband was a fiend? Some kind of in-joke? A try-out for some other, similar, project that the writer had in mind? Any ideas, anyone?

Graham

[pinkmoon]

The powder found between the leaves of the book wasn't arsenic; it was, according to Dr Nicholas Eastaugh who examined the paper and ink of the 'Diary', "Bone black". This is a carbonaceous material made from the incineration of bones and its main industrial use was as a pigment for paint. It also had a medicinal use in Victorian times: as an anecdote for strychnine poisoning. James Maybrick was addicted to both arsenic and strychnine. When I first read this in Feldman's book, it occurred to me straight away that even if JM didn't write the 'Diary', then either the book itself had at sometime been in his possession; or the writer if it wasn't JM was incredibly thorough; or it was an incredible coincidence. I think the presence of the bone black is in itself almost proof positive that the book had at one time been in Battlecrease House. JM, it seems, was not only a drug-addict but also something of a hypochondriac.

The handwriting is a puzzle. I think that it is highly likely (to me, at least) that it is not that of James Maybrick. It seems that whoever wrote the 'Diary' made virtually no attempt to copy JM's handwriting if we compare it to the existing samples of it. I wonder why? Feldman said that JM could possibly have had multiple personalities that amongst other things was manifested in an ability to write in a number of different hands. It's a weak argument, I feel.
Take a look at the genuine samples of JM's hand per Feldman's and Caz's book and draw your own conclusions. Melvin Harris claimed to have actually found the person who wrote the 'Diary'.........

The forger of the Hitler Diaries apparently spent years in his attempts to reproduce Hitler's handwriting, yet failed to convince the experts. The writer of the Ripper 'Diary' seems to have made no attempt whatsoever to reproduce Maybrick's hand. Speaking purely personally, I think that this fact in itself suggests that the 'Diary' was not written with a view to making a profit; even 120+ years ago comparison of handwriting was recognised as a legitimate investigative tool, and had the 'Diary' been presented as the work of James Maybrick a.k.a. Jack The Ripper, it would have been pooh-poohed on the spot. However, the 'Diary' does contain a lot of somewhat specialist knowledge about both James Maybrick and the Ripper crimes; especially the former. I think it virtually beyond argument that whoever wrote it knew JM very well indeed, either as a relative, a friend or an employee. Plenty of scope for discussion and theorising there!

The 'Diary' must have been written for some reason. Just what that reason was I personally can't yet fathom. A means to support Florence Maybrick by showing the world that her husband was a fiend? Some kind of in-joke? A try-out for some other, similar, project that the writer had in mind? Any ideas, anyone?

Graham

Could it have been written as a last chance to stop her been executed it would have been a massive gamble because she would have to admit killing her husband but as her husband was an evil mass murderer could she expect mercy.

[Graham]

Could it have been written as a last chance to stop her been executed it would have been a massive gamble because she would have to admit killing her husband but as her husband was an evil mass murderer could she expect mercy.

It's a tempting hypothesis, PM, but I don't think it would have worked even if the handwriting had been a perfect match to that of James Maybrick. Even in 1889 it almost certainly would have been rejected as a forgery. Plus, in law, the character, however bad, of a murder victim was not seen as providing mitigating circumstances. I think there is at least one case of a woman being hanged for killing her drunken, violent husband or lover. Murder, according to British law of the day, was murder. Florence Maybrick was reprieved as far as I recall on the basis that it was not proved beyond doubt that she had murdered her husband; in which case she should have been freed, as she wasn't charged with anything else. So why was she kept in clink for so long? It was really a disgraceful state of affairs, and there were many attempts to effect her release, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the 'Diary' could have been one of them. But....somehow, I don't think so.

By the way, the Florence Maybrick Case was to a great extent the basis for the foundation of the Court of Criminal Appeal, which reviews serious cases in which there is some doubt.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

It's a tempting hypothesis, PM, but I don't think it would have worked even if the handwriting had been a perfect match to that of James Maybrick. Even in 1889 it almost certainly would have been rejected as a forgery. Plus, in law, the character, however bad, of a murder victim was not seen as providing mitigating circumstances. I think there is at least one case of a woman being hanged for killing her drunken, violent husband or lover. Murder, according to British law of the day, was murder. Florence Maybrick was reprieved as far as I recall on the basis that it was not proved beyond doubt that she had murdered her husband; in which case she should have been freed, as she wasn't charged with anything else. So why was she kept in clink for so long? It was really a disgraceful state of affairs, and there were many attempts to effect her release, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the 'Diary' could have been one of them. But....somehow, I don't think so.

By the way, the Florence Maybrick Case was to a great extent the basis for the foundation of the Court of Criminal Appeal, which reviews serious cases in which there is some doubt.

Graham

Hi Graham,what if the diary was never used because the death sentence was lifted so the last chance hair brained scheme was never needed.

[Jason]

Hi Graham,what if the diary was never used because the death sentence was lifted so the last chance hair brained scheme was never needed.

The idea of writing a diary in the event of a failed appeal to support the over turning of a death sentence is far fetched and ludicrous in the extreme. If the diary ever saw the four walls of battlecrease, it did so as the work of mr maybrick himself.....even that seems more plausible as an argument.

[Graham]

Hi Graham,what if the diary was never used because the death sentence was lifted so the last chance hair brained scheme was never needed.

Could be...just don't know. Kenneth Rendell, who was instrumental in exposing the Hitler Diaries as a fake, also examined the Ripper 'Diary'. His feeling was that the handwriting was early 20th century rather than late 19th, but does general handwriting style change over such a brief period? Many people still think that anyone who could write in the Victorian period wrote in stylish copperplate, but this of course is nonsense. Anyway, Rendell concluded that the 'Diary' was written during the first years of the 20th century. This may well be supported by the "ion migration" test applied to it by one Rod McNeill, who concluded that the ink went onto the paper some time between about 1909 and about 1933. If both of these 'experts' are correct, then it would seem that the 'Diary' was written somewhat too late to be of any help to Mrs Florence Maybrick, who was released in 1904.

Graham