1.
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 23:48:22 -0800
From: Phil Kellingley
Although (by the volume you have devoted to it) the Maybrick theory is interesting - forensic examination of the "Diary" shows that the ion migration of ink to paper gives a date of 1921 + or - 10 years. Now, it is possible that a good forger could have tried to make a document look older, but newer?
Have a look at "A Gathering of Saints" by Robert Lindsey for a similar sort of document scam.
The Maybrick Diary is good - but it's certainly not the work of Jack the Ripper
2.
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 10:51:08 +0000
From: Mark Dooling
Having seen the video, I also am not of the opinion that Mike Barret forged the document himself though I do not deny the possibility that it was forged by somebody else without his knowing.
I was interested to note in the video (I haven't read the book in full, so maybe this is mentioned there as well) that as part of the corroboration process, they checked into the possibility that the book had been removed from Battlecrease (Maybrick's house) in recent years as one would expect, if it were genuine.
The owner of the house said that a few years ago he had had the house full re-wired and the floorboards in what HAD been Maybrick's bedroom had been taken up.
The two men who had done the work HAD been traced and confirmed that they drank in the same pub as Tony Devereux and Mike Barret but denied passing on any books to them.
This in itself is an interesting factor of the story to me and if you mull over it very carefully, logic takes you to strange conclusions indeed.
Regards
Mark
PS Maybe if/when this mystery ever DOES get solved, the solution will look a bit like the solution to the mystery in "Murder On The Orient Express" ie there are so many good candidates- perhaps they were ALL in on it....!
3.
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 96 12:01:28 EST
From: Tom Saupe
Regarding the Maybrick Diary. I am curious as to wether or not you have kept up with the latest work that has been done in validating (or not) the diary. According to the past several issues of Ripperana, Nick Warren's excellent Quarterly Journal of Ripperology, and Stewart Evans new book, the Lodger, the ink tests have proved conclusively that the diary could not have been written prior to 1974. This is the point at which chloroacetamide was added to the ink which Barrett confesses to have bought at the Bluecoat Arms art supply shop in Liverpool.
Recent tests on sample ink from the diary have shown that the ink contains chloroacetamide and therefore must be of modern origin. Barrett himself has now confessed through sworn affadavit that he forged the document.
Interesting as it may be, the diary once again proves how careful one needs to be when dealing with Ripper sources.
Tom Saupe
tsaupe@anna-maria.edu
4.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 11:02:24 -800
From: Andrew Dennis
Editor's Note: This is in reference to Diary Commentary #25 which deals with Maybrick's usage of the phrase "one off" in the diary.
I am a linguist and have studied extensively the use of phrase in correlation to one another. I must agree that the usage of a word or phrase prior to its official sanction by the recorders of speech is quite common and a necessary evil. For, how are we to know a word, it's usage, and definition that we may incorporate it in a lexicon unless that word has run the gambit of acceptance by the comman man (or woman) within a region. Truely, a word accepted in one region may not yet be accepted, or even known, in another region but that does not allow one to assume that the word does not yet exist.
See also #14 below for a similar contribution.
5.
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 22:09:21 -0500
From: Krista Cochrane
The Maybrick Diary is a simple solution to a great mystery that has baffled millions of people for over a 100 years. The problem is that the diary is "to easy" of a solution. My personal opinion is that it was written not by the Ripper. The date given by forensics experts was 1921. That is 32 years later.
I also believe that Maybrick was chosen because of the great deal of publicity that was given to his wifes trial.
Just think of all the impostor ripper letters that were sent, or how many impostor Zodiac letters were sent.
Question: Was any handwriting comparisons done between the diary and the letters that were considered to be genuine?
6.
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 01:03:53 -0800
From: Stuart Smith
I bought 'The Diary of Jack The Ripper' when it first came out. It seemed to smack of sensationalism when I saw it, but of course that impression is no grounds for rejecting the work as authentic.
However, I did make an accurate prediction about the "diary" which proved to be true when I opened the book and began to read. I guesse that the source of this book would be dead, so that no one could question him as to how he actually came about his morbid aquisition. And sure enough...he was indeed dead! So convenient...
Also, this now-dead source for this "diary" was also described as being very nervous about the book. He did not want to be asked about it. he, if I remember well, pretty paranoid about the whole thing. But WHY??? What was he afraid of? That some Scotland yard official would come banging at his door demanding to know where he was on the night of Mary Kelly's murder in 1888? Oh please!!! This is just getting sillier and sillier!
And wouldn't a wealthy man like Maybrick have the resources to buy a REAL diary? He could have bought not only a real diary, but one with a lock as well! But who would need to mutilate an old PHOTO ALBUM? Probably someone who could not find an unused Victorian era diary. Like someone in the late 20th century out to spin a yarn...
7.
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 17:11:43 +0100
From: Anders Blichfeldt
Dear friend! I do not believe in the authenticity of the Maybrick diary. Forensic experts of the FBI have looked at the Ripper case like they would if it happened today, and they said: "This killer behaved like a predatory animal. He seeks out week victims in places and at hours when they are most defenseless. He kills in a frenzy, then runs home. And "home" to such a killer is not far from the murder scene. He is demented, and it is only luck that has kept him from running into a cop in the labyrinthine streets of Whitechapel." One suspect fitting this was actually arrested, Aaron Kozminsky. Note also the educated literary style of the diary, in contrast to the wrong spelling by the murderer: "Juwes". Yours sincerely Anders Blichfeldt.
8.
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 01:16:07 -800
From: Ryan Wilmot
I have read the book and am sure that you have heard about it. I can not remember the man's name but it is said that it is an authentic diary of Jack the Ripper.
What are your thoughts on this book and do you believe that this was the real killer. In the book it mentions that the paper and the ink were made in the late 1880's. From what I have read and what the book has said, I dont have any doubt that this the real killer.
9.
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 16:53:13 +0100
From: Paul Lee
The publishers must have suspected that something was amiss, because when I bought the book a few years back, hastily plastered on the front "Is it Genuine? Decide for Yourself" (or words to that effect).
Did they suspect that there was something wrong somewhere or were they just trying for dramatic effect????
I must confess that I was taken in by the diary- it seemed so real, and had (at that point) lots of expert opinions to back it up.
I suppose I should've recalled the Hitler Diary hoax.......and then there was the Howard Hughes memoirs hoax...and also the Mussolini Diary hoax... and then there was the.......
I seem to recall that in the days leading up to the publication of the book, the publishers received some information that pointed to the diary being a fake. At this point, I recall now, the sticker was put on the books.
Considering the amount of money that the publishers spent gaining the rights to 'Maybricks' journal, there was no way that they'd have pulled the book from the shelves! I note that later editions of the book still regard the diary as 'THE genuine article' !!!!!
10.
Date: 12 Apr 96 22:38:07 EDT
From: Mark Griffin
By the by, the main reason I do not believe the Maybrick diary is real has little to do with its internal inconsistencies or the age of its ink or paper. It has more to do with the fact that serial killers keep PERSONAL memorabilia, such body parts or jewelry or pictures. I have never heard of a serial killer that wrote a step by step journal recording his descent into madness. They just don't do stuff like that. They're too busy going nuts and wallowing in their delusions to record their journey into insanity for posterity. Bundy didn't. Gacy didn't. Dahmer didn't. Gein didn't. Manson didn't. Hells bells, even Hannibal Lecter didn't. (He ate his, to quote Jody Foster.) Pick any serial killer in history and you will find none that were into literary documentation of their exploits. And certainly none who were so well spoken (written?). JTR was not literate. I don't believe he wrote any of the letters accredited to him. Nor do I thnk he ever signed one "Jack the Ripper". That particular appelation was, in my opinion, the creation of an enterprising journalist, not a demeanted psychopath. However, like our psychotic hero of 1888, I shan't stop (working on the mystery) "until I do get buckled".
11.
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:20:27 -0400
From: Michael Rogers
Here's my two cent's worth on the Maybrick Diary. It's a fraud, Beginning, Middle, End of story. Are we really supposed to believe that the books was found underneath floorboards with a watch having the victim's initials scratched into it. Come on, people, give me a break! Here's a good rule of thumb to follow when dealing with claims like this: anything that sound too much like the plot of a B movie IS the plot of a B movie.
I was visiting London when the diary was published. On my way to the underground station across from the Tower of London I ran into Donald Rumbelow who was gathering bodies for his Ripper walking tour. I couldn't pass up the opportunity to meet him so I introduced myself. Talk naturally came to the diary, which had been released that afternoon. I asked him for his thoughts on it and he said point blank that it was a hoax. After reading it I have to agree with him. Anyone with a good working knowledge of the facts and figures of the case could have knocked out something similar over a weekend. I know I could have done it.
12.
Date: Thu, 02 May 96 16:12:14 -700
From: Anonymous
After scanning the comments made concerning the validity of Maybrick's diary, I have decided that most of you would be happy if the case were never solved.
I don't blame you.
If a simple explanation were given, the enigma of Jack the Ripper would cease to exist. He would be nothing more than a madman who killed a few prostitutes. I, myself (not that my opinion means much) find the diary fascinating, and possibly genuine.
13.
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 09:47:27 -0700
From: Ed Howland
I don't think it is inconceivable that JTR was a well-educated and literary gentleman. If we was a member of the upper or middle classes of the late 19th century, he most certainly would have had to have been. In those days before telephones, virtually all communication was written, and sent by either the posts, courier or telegraph. To conduct any sort of profession, the businessman had to well skilled in the art of letter writing, legal documentation and the sort.
As to the possibility that Jack would have kept a diary when other serial killer's didn't is not out of the ordinary, either. In the first place, is not The Ripper considered one of the first serial killers in modern history, or at least the first to which great publicity was attached? The other serial killers all had some aspect of their nature that was unique, such as the Son of Sam and that dog. And modern day killers have availed themselves of the electronic and print media to publicize themselves. Also no one serial killer uses the same means and identifies himself with others, why then should their actions reflect on each other. This is a fallacy, to beilieve that we can predict the actions of one serial killer from the actions of another. As if to think that one who commits these heinous crimes must be cut from the same cloth, when clearly the evidence points to just the opposite.
Next, it would seem conclusive that Jack was indeed insane. I am only speculating here, but have not others who have gone insane recounted their inner turmoil in print? I think that letters by Van Gogh and other notable madmen would prove this out.
Finally, the act of writing in diaries and journals has to a large extent fallen to disuse. People simply do not do that anymore. The crime of serial killing is by far (at least as seen by modern history) one of a rather recent origin. 20th Century serial killers are in fact 20th Century men (usually).
The question of the diary being in an old photo album when Maybrick clearly had the means to purchase an ordinary one, seems to me perfectly acceptable. Would an intelligent man set out to write his dastardly journal in an ordinary diary, where his wife or brother might have accidentally (or not) come across it? I would seek to hide it in an unsuspected place, and the purloined letter concept could have been applied.
Not that I believe the diary is in fact that of the Ripper's. It seems a little too convincing for me.
14.
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 15:23:58 -0700
From: Ed Howland
My impression of the phrase "one off" is that it has been around for a while. I base this on looking into other cockney expressions, old and new while I was there. My Father-in-law came from Battersea Park and spoke a quite different lingo from the "queenie's Englush, luv." Anyway, many phrases he used in the 1970's were actually derived from around the turn of the century, and could be found in letters and writings of the era. Generally, the OED (or whatever catalog) doesn't get around to putting them into the lexicon until they have shown some robustness and that means they have been written in popular literature or the press. So my buest guess is that "one off" as in " 'avin one off" is probably 1890s to 1910. But we should be able to research this if we can get access to popular (if somewhat seady) literature of the era.
15.
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 17:15:49 -0700
From: Stephen Buford Rochester
Have you ever been told something or seen something that you couldn't tell anyone (because they asked you not to, or it was in your own best intrest)? Sometimes these things are so big that they wear on one until one can't help but tell someone. I know this has happened to me. Think about it though, who can Jack tell? No one! I have heard a frase that sums this up, "Two people can keep a secret when one of them is dead". I see the "diary" as a release. Something he needed to keep sane enough to go one with life. This man's (if it was indeed J. maybrick) life was falling apart, his wife was cheating on him, how would you feel? He must have loved her considering that she was still alive. His only friend was this book that he could write in. He couldn't tell anyone about what his wife was doing (this is porven by the lit. of the time eg. Isben's "Doll House", and Virgina Woolfe, I can't recall the name of the story at this time, but the wife leaves a diary for her husband to find so he wouldn't be ruined by what she had done, cheating on him.). In my mind all this makes a "diary" completely reasonable.
Now to address the writing (more of the spelling). He spells correctly in the "diary" because it is for him. I think he misspells words in the letters, and at the crime secens to keep people from thinking that he is an upperclass member of society; in that act he shows he is thinking about keeping himself from being caught.
As for is the "diary" real. More testing should be done. It should be given to a person who has no idea what the "diary" is and is not told what date the "diary" has to be to be real. (I guess you could cut some of the diary away). That is the only (sure) way the personal biases can be elimenated completely.
Back to the Maybrick Conference Page
Back to the Conference Main Page