James Maybrick

Hi Queen,

Sadly, Chris Jones the organiser of the trial of James Maybrick missed a trick there. The proceedings were not recorded in their entirety but there was a camera crew threre recording some of the action. I spoke with them however and they sounded French. They told me that they were not recording for a DVD but for a programme so I don't know if we over here will ever get to see what they filmed. I spoke to Chris Jones about why he had not got some professionals in to record the whole event and he told me that he had just completely underestimated the amount of interest that there would be in the whole thing. To be fair to Chris, he put on a marvelous event for all of us that attended, it's just a shame that the evidence given at the trial is not available after the event for all of us to discuss. I myself, having attended the trial, am now confident that further corroborative evidence to support the theory that James Maybrick was Jack The Ripper will eventually come to light!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyMay

Hi Queen,

...I myself, having attended the trial, am now confident that further corroborative evidence to support the theory that James Maybrick was Jack The Ripper will eventually come to light!

---

You can rest assured that it won't because he had nothing whatsoever to do with it !

Thanks for the conference feedback though :)

Hi there Anit- Pathos,

I don't think we've spoken on here before. Welcome to the 'wonderful world of James Maybrick' HA HA.
If you read back on this thread you will see that I have already been having a good natter with another Anti - Diarist our Chris. I can fully understand why a lot of people find it impossible to believe in the diary and I don't pretend to have all the answers. After all, if I had we wouldn't be enjoying this forum right now would we? My belief in the likelyhood that further evidence will eventually come to light to support the theory that James Maybrick was Jack the ripper is not entirely based upon 'pie in the sky hopes' nor is it based upon the revelation of Keith Skinners at the trial to the effect that he had documents in his possesion that could convince a jury that the diary came from Battlecrease House. No, I met somebody at the trial who is also working on a new book. I am sworn to secrecy about what it was that they told me (I can hear you mate going 'I Knew it!!!' HA HA HA HA) but what I can say here is that what I heard was enough to convince me that this person was on the right track. Trying to play devils advocate here for a moment however, I must say that as a PRO -DIARIST I may have been easier to convince than some BUT if you can allow yourself enough of an open mind about the subject you might eventually be surprised when news of this breaks!
I always like to LISTEN to ALL sides of the diary arguement. My thinking being that if I'm aware of a particular line of thought and have weighed up it's pro's and cons for myself, then I am in a much better position to comment on it. If I were to entrench myself in my belief in the diary then I could potentially miss something of extreme importance. An example of this being the speech given at the trial by Donald Rumbelow (distinctly ANTI- DIARY). What Don said has tested my belief in the Maybrick watch in particular to the limit. Having at first been prepared to accept the watch as genuine (perhaps as proffesser David Cantor would say because it was a 'bolt on' to my beliefs) I am now rather more sceptical about it. I still believe in the diary but the watch being 'discovered' only 6 weeks after the diary I must admit is suspicious. It is just possible that somebody came up with the watch as a 'cash in' on the back of the discovery of the diary. One thing I am absolutely certain of however is the integrity of Albert Johnson the owner of the watch. I met him at the trial and a nicer more genuine bloke I have yet to meet. Albert spoke with real (and genuine) indignity and belief in his voice in defence of the watch at the trial and if the watch is a forgery I am 100% certain that Albert is not part of the conspiracy.
Well, I suppose I'd better belt up there!

What a shame it wasn't recorded so we could see it. Did anyone take any pics?

Hi folks

I have just arrived back in the UK from attending the Maybrick Trial in Liverpool, visiting friends in Portsmouth, and, unfortunately, the funeral of my uncle, aged 92, in Poole, Dorset. I have posted a number of photographs of the Maybrick event on my Flickr site. I am adding more descriptive titles to describe who is shown in each photograph.

Chris

Hi Queen / Everyone,

I myself took over 1GB of pics and films of the trial and 'everything Maybrick' while I was in Liverpool. Most of which would probably not interest you anyway but I have uploaded a few here that you might like. The first shows you what the inside of the marquee tent looked like when the trial was taking place. The second is a picture of Jeremy Beadle holding in his hands the victorian diary bought by Mike Barrett shortly before the diary came to light (mentioned in Keith Skinners evidence). Lastly there's a pic of broadcaster Vincent Burke in 'full flow'. Vincent was the first of the experts to speak at the trial and set the scene by discussing in particular the Florence Maybrick case.
A real 'one off' Vincent was a joy to listen to and I think helped immensely to start the whole event off on the right foot.

Very sorry to hear about your uncle Chris..at least he had a 'good innings' though at 92.

All the best,

Tony.

Hi Tony

Thanks for these pics. It was great to meet you last weekend. Thanks also for your very kind words about the loss of my uncle. My uncle, Douglas Matchett, was born at 4 Sidney Road, Bootle, on 8 April 1915. He led a varied and interesting life, in his later years living part of the time in Germany and the rest of the time in Dorset. The Friday funeral service conducted by his fellow Quakers at the Poole (Dorset) Crematorium was lovely. Thus, in addition to his long and valued life, Douglas had a great send-off.

All the best

Chris

Hi All,

As you all know by now I'm very much a PRO-DIARIST. That said however I am painfully aware that there are so many unanswered questions about it. Apart from the question of the handwriting (which is a great puzzle to me as I believe very much in the actual TEXT) the other great puzzle is that of where the diary has been all these years IF it is either a contemporary copy of James's original or b) genuine itself.
Thinking a lot as I do on this subject (sad git- get a life..there I'll say it for you! HA HA HA) I have come up with the following list of possibilities...

1) That it lay undiscovered for years in Battlecrease House.
2) That it was stolen from Battlecrease House at the time of James Death by one of the servants and has been in the family of that persons relatives for years. It could therefore have finally come to light if the last member of that family was to die with no children etc.
3) Along those same lines of thought that it Michael Maybrick took possesion of it and that it finally came to light when Michael Maybricks wife died. Chris, do you know when this was? Or this theory ditto any of the other Maybrick brothers or servants.
4) That Gladys Maybrick somehow had it amongst her possesions and that it came to light when her Bungalow was cleared either by relatives (not sure that she had any) or by someone connected to a house clearance firm.
5) That Mike Barrett's story of how he got the diary is TRUE and that there is indeed a family connection to Anne Graham his ex wife. It is also interesting to speculate that Mike used to be a 'scrap metal dealer'. Is it possible that Mike came by the diary through a connection from his past line of work? I mean scrap metal dealers would be quite likely to have contacts that dealt with house clearances don't you think? If this was to be the case however it would be somewhat of a puxzzle as to why Mike did not simply say this at the time (unless of course the diary was obtained illegally by the person or persons he got it from).
6) That it came to light when James's Liverpool office building was demolished (again Chris if you know what year this was I would be grateful).
7) That what we have is NOT the original diary but a contemporary transcript made by possibly George Davidson (Maybricks Friend) Edwin Maybrick, Michael Maybrick, The servants en masse at Battlecrease, Thomas Lowry (Clerk at Maybricks Office) or a host of any other close associates/ friends of any of the people known to be in the house at the time.
8) That Florence Maybrick had it in her possesion until her death in 1941 and that it was eventually shipped out to Anne Grahams family after that date. Does anybody know what happened to Florries possesions after her death?
9) That James (Bobo) Maybrick inherited it as part of his fathers things when he came of age and that it was then sent on to a relative when he tragically died. Such a theory of the diary being well looked after for a number of years would help to explain the relatively good condition it was in for it's age when first discovered.

If anyone can think of any other possibilities or shed some more light on the possibility of any of these I'd like to hear from you!

Well, that should jeep you thinking anyhow!!

Tony.

Hi Tony

Let me quote from your message and try to answer you along the way. . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyMay

. . . the other great puzzle is that of where the diary has been all these years IF it is either a contemporary copy of James's original or b) genuine itself.
Thinking a lot as I do on this subject (sad git- get a life..there I'll say it for you! HA HA HA) I have come up with the following list of possibilities...

1) That it lay undiscovered for years in Battlecrease House.
2) That it was stolen from Battlecrease House at the time of James Death by one of the servants and has been in the family of that persons relatives for years. It could therefore have finally come to light if the last member of that family was to die with no children etc.

---

That seems to have been the implication in Anne's revised story as given by in Paul Feldman's 1996 book, Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter. The story goes that Alice Yapp, the servant who opened the incriminating letter from Florence to her lover Brierley somehow got the Diary and gave it to Elizabeth Formby, Billy Graham's step grandmother. It seems to me though that Feldman devised the story from inuendo and wishful thinking and that the Diary is more likely a clever hoax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyMay

3) Along those same lines of thought that it Michael Maybrick took possesion of it and that it finally came to light when Michael Maybricks wife died. Chris, do you know when this was? Or this theory ditto any of the other Maybrick brothers or servants.

---

Michael's wife Laura died May 2, 1929 per the the inscription on the grave shared with her husband in Ryde, Isle of Wight. I do think though that one would have to explain how the Diary got back to Liverpool. I think more likely the Diary was written in Liverpool and has never left it, or if Maybrick wrote it on the Train he brought it back each time. Here again of course I am assuming it is a hoax devised in Liverpool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyMay

4) That Gladys Maybrick somehow had it amongst her possesions and that it came to light when her Bungalow was cleared either by relatives (not sure that she had any) or by someone connected to a house clearance firm.

---

Maybe but then the same question of how it got back to Liverpool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyMay

5) That Mike Barrett's story of how he got the diary is TRUE and that there is indeed a family connection to Anne Graham his ex wife.

---

The story is Anne's not Mike's. All he knew is that he got the Diary in a brown paper package from Tony Devereux.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyMay

It is also interesting to speculate that Mike used to be a 'scrap metal dealer'. Is it possible that Mike came by the diary through a connection from his past line of work? I mean scrap metal dealers would be quite likely to have contacts that dealt with house clearances don't you think? If this was to be the case however it would be somewhat of a puxzzle as to why Mike did not simply say this at the time (unless of course the diary was obtained illegally by the person or persons he got it from).

---

Then why did he never say that if that is how he came by the Diary? He has had many opportunities to "come clean" that that was the way he came by the Diary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyMay

6) That it came to light when James's Liverpool office building was demolished (again Chris if you know what year this was I would be grateful).

---

Knowsley Buildings where James Maybrick worked were demolished in 1970.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyMay

7) That what we have is NOT the original diary but a contemporary transcript made by possibly George Davidson (Maybricks Friend) Edwin Maybrick, Michael Maybrick, The servants en masse at Battlecrease, Thomas Lowry (Clerk at Maybricks Office) or a host of any other close associates/ friends of any of the people known to be in the house at the time.

---

Again, the idea that the Diary is a transcript of an original has occurred to me and could be one reason the handwriting does not match Maybrick's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyMay

8) That Florence Maybrick had it in her possesion until her death in 1941 and that it was eventually shipped out to Anne Grahams family after that date. Does anybody know what happened to Florries possesions after her death?

---

Not sure of the disposition of her belongings. Again if that is what happened how did the Diary get from Connecticut to Liverpool and why pick the Barretts as the people to bring the Diary forward? :Smiliz_Kingz_PDT_13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyMay

9) That James (Bobo) Maybrick inherited it as part of his fathers things when he came of age and that it was then sent on to a relative when he tragically died. Such a theory of the diary being well looked after for a number of years would help to explain the relatively good condition it was in for it's age when first discovered.

---

Similar questions arise as to Bobo having the Diary as the speculation about Laura Maybrick or Gladys having it -- how did the document get from wherever they had it back to Liverpool and why the Barretts. Once again, I think the Diary was put together some time in the last 189 years in Liverpool and is mostly a Liverpool hoax born and bred. There now -- something else Liverpool can be proud of. Hoo hoo. :PDT_Xtremez_12:

Came across this when I was googling Knowsley Buildings:

The Diary of Jack the Ripper - Book Review
By David Carter

Jack the Ripper remains the most notorious serial killer of all time. The fact he was never caught and never identified maintains the mystery. Here is a book that purports to reveal Jack’s actual diary. According to the writer, Jack the Ripper was in fact a cotton merchant from Liverpool by the name of James Maybrick. No I am not giving away the ending, that much is revealed on the first page. He travelled to London by train, murdered and mutilated his victims, and calmly returned home to torment his young wife.

James Maybrick was unquestionably an interesting man. He travelled to Norfolk, Virginia on cotton and tobacco business and on the boat journey home, met and fell in love with an American beauty by the name of Florence Chandler. She was 18. He was 41. It would seem that both parties imagined the other to be wealthier than they actually were.

Florence was destined to become the first American woman to be tried in an English court, and as the charge was one of murdering her husband, it was a case that entranced the nation. The book argues the reason for the sudden end to the Ripper killings was because Maybrick was dead.

The mysterious diary that came to light at the end of the eighties is reproduced almost in full. I will leave you to make up your mind as to its authenticity. As for the book itself, I found it an interesting read, and I certainly learned much I did not know before. It may contain glaring anomalies, but you might like to get hold of a copy yourself and make up your own mind.

There is a vaguely interesting personal footnote. Among the photographs in the book is a picture of Knowsley Buildings in Old Hall Street, Liverpool. This is the building where James Maybrick maintained his offices. It was an old block with Dickensian outside metal staircases, almost a cross between a workhouse and a prison. In my youth I knew it well. There is a photograph in the book of Knowsley Buildings and within the basement, clearly visible, is or was, a gents’ hairdressing saloon. I knew that well too. I well remember sitting there waiting for a trim, as a teenage office boy, clutching my newly released Sergeant Pepper album.

The saloon was ancient and was dismantled when the building was knocked down in 1970. The thought occurs to me that could it possibly have been that James Maybrick, who maintained an office just upstairs, had his locks trimmed there too? He was a neat dapper chap, his photograph tells us that. It would seem very likely he would pop downstairs for a cut.

Could it possibly have been that I sat in the chair that was sat in by Jack the Ripper himself, as he thought of his hideous business? Now there’s a thought! I liked the book. It brought back many memories, most of them good ones.

The Diary of Jack the Ripper

By Shirley Harrison

ISBN: 1562827049

David Carter's new novel "The Fish Catcher" tells the story of a group of children evacuated from London during World War II to escape the blitz bombing. It turns into a murder mystery and has been well reviewed. You can check out the first chapter on David's website at http://davidcarter.eu The book is available in hard copy or by instant download, and can be ordered in any bookshop quoting ISBN 978 - 1847539304

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_Carter
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Diary-...view&id=465347

Again, the idea that the Diary is a transcript of an original has occurred to me and could be one reason the handwriting does not match Maybrick's.


I just thought when I read this statement...why?
I don't know that much about the why's and where's of all this....but why would someone transcribe from a document they already had?
and what happened to the original if so?
Just a thought!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaisyChains

Again, the idea that the Diary is a transcript of an original has occurred to me and could be one reason the handwriting does not match Maybrick's.


I just thought when I read this statement...why?
I don't know that much about the why's and where's of all this....but why would someone transcribe from a document they already had?
and what happened to the original if so?
Just a thought!

---

No answers to your questions, DaisyChains. I am just bandying about ideas in order to try to penetrate the mystery of the existence of the Diary and why it is what it is, written in such a photo album or scrapbook with pages missing etc etc.

Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge

No answers to your questions, DaisyChains. I am just bandying about ideas in order to try to penetrate the mystery of the existence of the Diary and why it is what it is, written in such a photo album or scrapbook with pages missing etc etc.

Chris

---

Hi George,

When you've got to the bottom of those, see if you can fathom why anyone on this planet would choose to alight, and then to stay, at Diaryville at all. There are so many other interesting stops along JtR way. It amazes me that people (choose to) believe in it's genuineness at all. No excuse for it, bar having a bit of a laugh.

AP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiPathos

Hi George,

When you've got to the bottom of those, see if you can fathom why anyone on this planet would choose to alight, and then to stay, at Diaryville at all. There are so many other interesting stops along JtR way. It amazes me that people (choose to) believe in it's genuineness at all. No excuse for it, bar having a bit of a laugh.

AP.

---

Well AP. You are not the same AP from "Casebook: Jack the Ripper" are you??? I would incline to think the thing is a definite hoax. You are right it is surprising that people believe in it given its lack of provenance and that it isn't in Maybrick's handwriting. And yet I have to admit the thing was cunningly put together: despite the duff notes it occasionally sounds there is nothing in it that is outright wrong and that proves it a forgery.

I have a fascination with it coming as I do from Liverpool and having lived up the road from where the Maybrick's live. It is what got me so engaged in the Ripper world, looking into other aspects of the period and the murders besides the Maybrick aspect. As you say there is more than enough of interest to do with the murders without Maybrick.

Chris

Hi Chris, Anti Pathos and Daisy Chain,

You ask why anybody would 'choose to alight and stay at Diaryville' when there are so many interestinfg stops on the way regarding JTR?
Well, In my opinion, how much more interesting a storyline do you want than that of the diary? I mean it's got EVERYTHING and (real or not) even has the added interest of the REAL Florence Maybrick trial to get your teeth into. Then there is the FACT that, unlike a lot of the other ripper candidates, there is actually a good deal of information about the life of James Maybrick and the Maybrick family to read. I would also point out that as far as most of the other JTR candidates are concerned, researchers have been looking into their candidacy for a considerable number of years. With Maybrick and the diary we are only a mere 15 or so years in as yet, there could still quite likely be evidence undiscovered out there!! So my point is, move on...but to what? Where are we going to look that we have not looked before? Ok, I conceed that this statement is much to far reaching (of course I don't expect EVERYONE to 'drop everything' and turn their attention to Maybrick) but you did ask why some people (including myself) are prepared to spend a considerable amount of time in 'Diary Land'.

I AGREE with you Chris when you say that there are a lot of pointers to make the diary appear a forgery BUT I also AGREE with you when you point out that there is nothing 'outright wrong' in the diary to PROVE it is a forgery. As we stand, I can no more PROVE to you all that the diary is genuine than you can PROVE to me that it isn't. Don't you therefore think that this potentially very important document is worth thinking about? I know I do!

One last point that I would like to make here is this. HUMAN BEINGS ARE FALLIBLE we DO all make mistakes. I for one would be shouting FORGERY from the highest mountain top if the diary was absolutely 100% fool-proof. Nothing in life is EVER like that and if it is you can bet your life it's not real!
I mean, have none of you ever mistaken your wherabouts on a specific date when asked only to realise or be reminded at a later date that in fact you had gotten things mixed up?
IF James Maybrick wrote most of the original text of the diary (I say most of the original text as I feel it is a POSSIBILITY that the diary we have is NOT James's original and also consider the POSSIBILITY that BOTH of us could be right :ie that the diary we have IS a modern forgery but BASED on an original still held by someone (most likely Anne Graham) it in no way would surprise me if he got some of his facts wrong.
To be pedantic only blinkers you from LISTENING to the WHOLE of an arguement. If as soon as someone makes a mistake you 'pounce' upon that error you have stopped LISTENING at that point. Far better I suggest to ABSORB the whole, think and THEN respond. To be aware of empowers, to be ignorant of does not!

But to lighten up here a moment guys, isn't this what's so wonderful about the subject of JTR? There never is a DEFINITIVE I was right and you were wrong about any of the candidates! Whether you agree with me (or my doctors who also think I'm crazy HA HA HA) I love talking things out with you all!!

All the best,

Tony.

I'm sure Maybrick's 'diary' won't be the first diary in existence to have hand writing in it other than the diary owner's. Also, an individual's handwriting does vary according to level of stress etc. It would be a poor hoaxer who didn't cover his tracks on this one.

As for the using the incorrect name for certain places. Often places are called by one or more names at the same time, especially pubs - hardly conclusive.

Anyway, I hope someone does make a film about Maybrick. It would make such a change to see Liverpool's merchant class depicted for once. It's almost as though the historical reality of being one of the richest cities on earth with an extravagant merchant class (Those mansions around Sefton Park were built as statements of conspicuous wealth) never happend.

Hi There Daisy!

Sorry, I got so high up on my high horse there for a moment I totally forgot to respond to your question as to why someone would want to transcribe the diary in the first place.
I suggest that the answer to this COULD be purely for 'insurance'.
Put yourself in the position for a moment of Mike Barrett. You have in your possesion a potentially extremely valuable document (both historically and financially I presume), you have done what research you can into it but now know that you need to have it examined by an expert. You know nothing whatsoever about the publishing world and have no idea how reputable (or not) any publishing agent or expert you might approach is likely to be ( I mean by this, would you trust an Antiques dealer to give you an accurate estimation of what a quite obviously extremely valuable item was worth?).
Yet you realise you have got as far as you can with your research and to make anything from your find at some point you are going to have to trust somebody.
So what do you do?
Copy the text of what was in the diary on your computer? No, **** it that only proves that the diary was once in your possesion.
Photo copy the whole thing? No, that only proves ditto.
So you decide to COPY the text from the ORIGINAL and, until you have established that the person you have approached is trustworthy, HOLD ON to the diary itself. You may not intend to DEFRAUD long term but a little deception to start with would make sure that you don't get ripped off. It may also have been a worry for Mike that some unknown law might come into play in which it would turn out that the diary be owned by the government or such like (the treasure trove laws I think I mean).

This I admit is a TENUOUS suggestion but until absolutely disproven a POSSIBILITY nevertheless.

Tony.

Hi All,

Thank you Chris for your constructive reply to my post on here (and on the casebook) to do with the provenence of the diary. It is amazing what you find when searching for stuff on the internet isn't it? That 'titbit' you came up with about Knowsley Buildings really brought the place to life for me for a few seconds!
So James Maybricks office was demolished in 1970 a good 22 years before it came to light via Mike Barratt. Has there ever been any research into whether or not either Anne or Mike could have had relatives or business associates that performed the actual demolition of Knowsley Buildings?
Do we in fact know which company performed the demolition?
Personally, I think it more likely that if the diary was James's and he did write it that he would have kept it at home in Battlecrease House and NOT at Knowsley Buildings but a possibility is a possibility and so must be explored.
The reason I say James would more likely have kept the diary at home is that Trevor Christie in his book 'Etched In Arsenic' repeatedly tells us about a 'dressing room' (I THINK it was) only accessable from James's bedroom that James always kept locked and was strictly off limit's to EVERYONE bar James. IF the diary was written at Battlecrease by James then I feel sure it would have been written there.
While I AGREE with your caution concerning Paul Feldman's research, I do think there is a possibility that there could be something in it. Feldman's life pretty much fell apart because of the diary and so he NEEDED there to be a connection. For this reason a lot of his conclusions may have been hurried etc. BUT it's a pity that no one more impartial has not since taken the time to definitively explore the theories and links he suggested.
Does anyone know any more about the 'after Maybrick life' of Alice Yapp?
Do we know what happened to her after Maybrick died? I heard it rumoured at the recent trial that the theory was that Alice had stolen the diary and given it to a friend that could not read. This would tend to suggest to me that her reason (if this was all true of course) for doing so might have been because she knew that this person was not capable of reading the diary. The diary would not then have been in her possesion or at her home but in 'safe keeping' leaving her with an ideal opportunity to blackmail Michael Maybrick or such like. After all, a servant that was quite prepared to open her mistresses letters and blame it on a small child was quite obviously not worthy of one's trust!
Any thought's on any of this little lot would be appreciated!

All the best for now,

Tony.

Hi Chris, and Hi Tony.

I’ve been lurking here a while now, having stumbled across this site almost by accident, and found it refreshingly polite for a discussion board concerning the Maybricks, (and the inevitable diary too of course), and thought I had better stick my head above the parapet and say Hello!

With or without the JTR connection, the Maybrick family saga is still a fascinating one, and is a long overdue BBC period drama if ever there was one.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Tony.
I don’t have a copy of the diary with me now, (I’m at work!), but I saw your comment that you thought JM would have kept the thing at home. Of course, there is an early entry where JM is almost caught writing it, and he is clearly supposed to be at the office at the time, so my guess is that we’re supposed to think he’s writing it at work. Clearly the later entries imply that he’s either writing it at home or on the train. I think that if this is a hoax it’s a rather nice touch.

You say that at the Trial of JM, your faith in the watch was somewhat shaken. I wasn’t there, but having discussed what Donald Rumbelow said about the watch on that occasion, it sounds to me like he unwittingly got some facts quite wrong. His interpretation of the Turgoose and Wild reports seemed to imply quite the opposite of what they actually say, that the scratches are likely to date back several decades, and I’m told he repeated the old canard about it being a ladies watch, which it isn’t.

As I must have handled hundreds of antique watches due to my profession over the years, I think I can speak with some authority on the subject! I’ve seen or heard nothing that alters my view that the watch scratches were probably made in the first half of the 20th century or earlier.

The coincidence of the watch appearing when it did however does undermine the whole thing I agree.

Chris.
As for why the diary might just be a transcript of another document, it occurred to me that if Keith Skinner’s new provenance is true, (and I’m inclined to believe that it is, as he has a fine reputation to lose if it isn’t), then Mike Barrett was possibly handling stolen goods when he got hold of it, and didn’t want to risk trying to flog it on the open market. A transcript however would be much safer. Particularly one that tried, ( and failed), to look like JM’s handwriting. It would explain the bad spelling and grammar, and maybe even a few of the other inconsistencies.

Anyhow, just a few random thoughts as I said, and maybe we can chat further.

Paul.

P.S. I’m neither pro nor anti anything. I’m open-minded over the whole diary thing and am wide open to be persuaded either way!

Hi Paul

Welcome to the forum. While the Diary is clearly not in James Maybrick's handwriting, it is clear that whomever wrote it tried to make it look old, with fancy capital letters etc. The last page signed "Jack the Ripper" is probably the most unconvincing of the lot as it looks staged and appears as if the writer thought... "I have to make this look good" (see below) -- also the many pages with a squiggle or a diagonal line at the base of the page, as if they wanted to fill up pages (if you have read the allegations of Australian Steve Powell the man he says created the Diary, Steve Park, was said to have done just that, to fill the pages) -- and the lines of poetry struck out neatly with a single stroke as if the deleted lines are meant to be read by a later reader, not like the private journal of maniac where we might expect to see the lines scrubbed out as I do when I write poetry (though not a maniac I hope ha ha). In fact there are words completely obliterated in the text.

Chris

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1306/...4a3ec635_o.jpg

Hi Chris.

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply.

Whilst I’m certainly not about to disagree that the diary handwriting bears no resemblance whatsoever to JM’s, I do think there is an equally viable alternative for the writing being made to “look old”, and that is that it actually is old. The fact that the ending is rather staged to put it mildly, is also something that I think I’m in complete agreement with, but of course any hoaxer, or even JM himself might have felt the need to do this for a misguided dramatic effect no matter when it was written.

Whoever wrote the diary was apparently influenced by the “Dear Boss” letter handwriting when they wrote that last paragraph, and I suppose in reality that could have been anyone from JM himself right up to Michael Barratt and any number of people in between, all of whom had an equal chance of studying it.

I have always found the pro diary explanation of JM having a multiple personality disorder and therefore multiple handwriting styles to be just a tad ridiculous and convenient, but not impossible. It seems to me that accepting the facts that the diary was likely to have been written in lengthy sessions rather than in individual shorter entries, and also not being recognisable as any of JMs rather variable handwriting styles, then the idea of a transcript of some sort is a viable one. It could just as easily be a transcript of an older hoax as a copy of the real thing, if such a thing ever existed.

I have often found the views of those who fully support the diary as the work of JM/JTR to be perhaps a little naïve and unquestioning, and in much the same way those most vociferous critics seem to be rather blinkered in their views. I really hope I fall somewhere between these two, and that I do so for good and sound reasons.

It also seems to me that critics of the diary are often criticising the views of Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman rather than the diary itself, which is often entirely innocent of some of the gaffes it’s supposed to have made. The same can sometimes apply in reverse too when for example some supporters of the diary see letters on Kelly’s wall which, IMHO is very wishful thinking indeed!

If I had to call it now, I’d go for a hoax perpetrated by someone who was once associated with the Maybrick family and predating 1930, but like I said, I’m wide open to being swayed either way by a good argument, so anyone who fancies it, a civilised argument would be great!

Incidentally, as I’m interested in the Maybrick case with or without the blessed diary and JTR aspect, what do people think about Florrie’s guilt or otherwise? You don’t see much discussed about that. I’ll go for innocent of both murder and wilful poisoning.

Paul.

Hi Paul, Hi Chris et all

Welcome to the civilised world of diary discussion Paul. I also post (as Chris does) on the JTR Casebook site but it's all a bit more heated on there. Chris and I don't see eye to eye as you will have discovered if you've read our past discussions but we never argue we simply discuss. I recently met Chris at the trial of James Maybrick and I can tell you that he's a good lad! HA HA HA
I have never seen the point in arguement. When people argue they stop listening to each other as it becomes only a battle of wills for supremicy. I do not have such a big ego that I can't bear the thought that I could be wrong and so for me arguing is never necessary. On the time that I've been on here Chris has made some EXCELLENT points and has shared some of his considerable knowledge with me. I may not have converted Chris with my own arguements but I have interested him enough to make him think and at times I hope challenge him in his beliefs as he has in mine. CHALLENGING is what discussions should always be about after all don't you think?
I was interested to hear what you thought about the Maybrick watch. It, along with the diary, is a fascinating item. As far as your point about the scratches possibly dating from the early 1900's, I can't see that myself. For me the watch must either be genuine or a fake. James Maybrick could obviously not have made the scratches in it after 1889 so who else could have or would have? My only suggestion on who COULD have if indeed she had the diary amongst her personal possesions would have been James's wife Florrie. IF the diary is genuine (or the one we have is a contempory copy) Florrie could have made the scratches in the back of the watch after her release in 1904. As far as the text of the diary being a fake, this is also a possibility and I would very much like to see examples of Michael Maybricks wife Linda's handwriting. If during the search Michael initiated of Battlecrease House after James's death an ORIGINAL copy of the diary (written in James's hand) was found, it seems fair to assume as head of the family that he would have taken possesion of it.
Michael Maybrick did not seem to be the marrying kind and the reason why he eventually chose to marry hios houdsekeeper has always puzzled me. But if Linda had been the type of hoyusekeeper that Alice Yapp appears to have been it is just possible that she discovered James's original amongst Michaels possesions, copied it and then blackmailed him into marrying her.
Total supposition I grant you, but possible never the less.

All the best,

Tony.

Hi Tony.

Splendid to hear from you mate. If you look back on the old Casebook archives you’ll see I was there myself for some considerable time a couple of years back. I still keep up to date with it now, but to be honest the argument, (or should I say debate!), never seems to move forward on the Maybrick boards due to the rather childish antics of a small minority. Whilst I was regularly posting there I did however make some very good pals on both sides of the argument, (and both sides of the pond), and have kept in touch with some of them via email. I’ve had some darned good, and sometimes quite forceful arguments with a couple of them, but it has never descended to the slanging match that Diaryworld regularly stoops to on the Casebook, and we’ve always kissed and made up afterwards!

Back then I corresponded with Shirley Harrison and Robert Smith and found them to be honest and open people, quite unlike the cynics some would have us believe them to be. In fact Robert let me see the Turgoose, Wild and Baxendale reports long before they came into the public domain just because I showed a genuine interest, so it just goes to show that if you treat people well they are much more likely to respond positively.

Anyhow, enough of all that stuff. To answer you in no particular order.

I think you’ll find Michael’s wife was Laura. I’m agreeing with you that he didn’t seem to be the marrying kind, and I think it more than likely he was gay, even if repressed. There’s absolutely no proof of that of course, but I believe I read a while back that this was the opinion of one of the surviving Maybricks. He did have a very intense friendship with Fred Weatherley who wrote the words to several of his songs, and Fred wrote a poem or ode to Michael after his death. Whether he was or not, it seems likely his marriage was one of convenience to maintain respectability. He was Mayor after all, and needed a lady Mayoress!

My theory about the watch, and it is only a theory, (though a darned sight more plausible IMHO than most of the recent fake theories I’ve heard which are VERY far fetched), is based more than anything on the order in which the scratches were made. Both Turgoose and Wild were in agreement over this. There are the very untidy and extremely feeble scratches supposedly put there by James, and also two sets of much neater and deeper scratches comprising letters and numbers, which bear no resemblance to the former. Many old watches contain these neatly engraved or scratched numbers, and they were put there by repairers in the past. This practice has all but died out now.

The wearing of pocket watches ceased rapidly after WW1, and most were either thrown away, or in the case of a really good 18-carat example, put in a drawer and forgotten. It is unlikely therefore that the Maybrick watch would have been repaired or cleaned much after say 1920. It was cleaned in the 1980s as we know, as it was not in working order before Albert bought it.

This all means that it is highly likely the repair marks date from before 1930, and could possibly go right back into the previous century. It is very unlikely that they are recent. Doubly so because the watch needed work in the 80s, which we’re told involved a new mainspring, so it had clearly been out of action for some time. The Maybrick scratches as we know, were made BEFORE those repair marks were put there as the repair marks are ON TOP of them. It is physically impossible for the scratches to be faked so that they appear below the repair marks so, ipso facto, the Maybrick scratches are old and were certainly there before Albert bought the watch! Simple!

If the watch scratches are old, then maybe the diary is too. Just maybe. Of course the still rotten provenance of the diary, and the strange coincidence of Albert’s just happening to discover the Maybrick scratches when he did, still point quite strongly to a recent “put up job”, but I still have sufficient nagging doubts over any recent fake scenario that I’ve ever heard.

Anyhow, that’s more than enough of my theorising. I’ve even got a theory as to who put the scratches there too, and I don’t think it was Florrie, but I think that’s quite enough for now!

All the best.

Paul

Hi Paul

You will probably know me as a regular poster on the Casebook boards. I am glad you have been able to make some friends there. I do agree that the discusssion on the Maybrick threads tends to be circular and tedious, not to mention nasty at times. I have met Robert Smith and Shirley Harrison on numerous occasions and find them both to be nice people. Neither of them deserve the abuse that has been heaped on them and I think it is reasonable to think that they believe in the Diary even though the odds are it is a fake.

As for Michael Maybrick, I would agree that he probably did marry because it would look better for him as Mayor of Ryde to be married, although I am not exactly sure of the timing of when he and Laura wed and his time as Mayor.

In terms of the watch, while I find the details of the testing of watch and Diary to be rather dizzying and confusing, wasn't the determination that the scratches might be tens of decades old based more on the evident age of fragments of metal found in the scratches rather than that the "Maybrick" scratches were under the repairers' marks. The old fragments of metal could have come from the implement used which could have been old, so I am not sure that is a definitive finding that the scratches were there going back decades approaching Maybrick's day.

Chris

Hi Chris.

Yes I recognise you from the Casebook, and its great to chat to you here. I posted regularly on Diaryworld a couple of years ago, but in the end you come to realise it’s not so much of a discussion there as some sort of game, so I stopped playing. It served its purpose though, and those people whose opinions I value are usually more than happy to chat elsewhere.

I think the huge amount of testing data that exists is as dizzying as you say without doubt, and this only serves to add to the confusion. You only need to read some of the messages on the casebook concerning the testing of both scratches and diary ink to see that some posters are basing their opinions on only part of the data that’s available. Someone would do well to produce a proper précis of all the data to date.

The advantage with the watch tests however is that there were only three, and they all agree with one another 100%! Not something you can say about the convoluted ink business.

As you correctly say, the small brass particle found in the base of one of the scratches was ONE of the reasons given for dating the scratches as decades old, but more important was Wild’s silver enrichment tests, and I think it was those that really led to the conclusion that the scratches were likely to be “tens of years old”. That brass particle is a bit of a red herring, and I absolutely agree that it was probably badly corroded long before it came anywhere near the watch. You’d expect corrosion to have been found elsewhere on the watch if it happened in situ, although I think that little particle is interesting for other reasons.

Interesting as that might be, it’s the ORDERING of the scratches that really interests me. It’s not something you can fake, and it is only apparent with sophisticated microscopy. Although both Turgoose and Wild reported on the ordering of the scratches, they drew no conclusions from it. They weren’t asked to. They are metallurgists, not watch experts. It wasn’t until I started to discuss this with Caroline Morris, who had the watch reports but was unable to divulge more than little snippets due to copyright issues, that the significance of the ordering really became apparent.

It was after I got permission to see the reports myself that I realised the potential significance of this little bit of information. When the Murphy’s got the watch cleaned before selling it to Albert they didn’t mark the inside of the case in any way, so we at least know as an absolute fact that the existing repair marks were already there then, much as you’d expect them to be. As they are on top of the “Ripper” marks, then by simple logic the “Ripper” marks are earlier. At the very least this puts Albert right out of the picture as far as any hoaxing is concerned, and almost certainly puts the scratches back several decades before that. If Albert is squarely out of the picture, then a lot of the modern hoax theories I’ve heard rather fall apart.

I’m proud of that little bit of investigative work, which had never been considered by anyone until Caz and I raised it.

Which came first then, watch or diary? I wish I knew.

Regards to all.

Paul

Hi Paul, Hi Chris,

So glad you've jumped on board Paul. I find your conclusions about the Maybrick watch really interesting. I AGREE entirely that we can count Albert Johnson out of the picture as part of any conspiracy to defraud. I met him at the recent trial of James Maybrick and a nicer, more kindly old gent you could not wish to meet. Albert believes genuinely 100% in the watch that is obvious. So who do you think could have put the scratches in the watch if not Florrie? Gladys perhaps (James's daughter)? If you aren't worried about getting libelled with who you think it was spill the beans mate please!! HA HA HA
I have never been convinced either of the 'modern hoax theory'. For me, if the diary is a hoax it is an old one. The main problem with that idea is however the point that Chris (and others on the casebook) make about the 'Tin match box, empty' phrase. try as hard as I might (as a believer in the diary) I can't shake that particular point they make off. It is a VALID question and highly suspicious. So this leaves me with the possibility that maybe some of the lines in the diary ARE faked while the majority are genuine. I don't like the 'OH costly intercourse of death' line either as the OH seems like a blatant copying mistake and not something that a man like Maybrick would have got wrong. Then again, the psychology of the diary writings is so compelling for me. Having suffered with depression for long periods in my life I find myself really connecting with a lot of the emotions and mood swings in the text of the diary. If we are looking at a forgery we are either dealing with someone that has also suffered with deep depression or a VERY VERY clever individual or group. A lot of the anti- diary camp grossly underestimate the intelligence behind the words in the diary believe me!!
Chris, somebody has recently told me that the list of items mentioning the 'tin match box, empty' as in the police itinery list was actually published in the press at the time of the murders. I think that this is incorrect but wonder if you could confirm or deny this? If true it would sucessfully explain for me the problem I have with that phrase's inclusion in the diary.
Any help on that would be gratefully appreciated.

More soon,

All the best,

Tony.

Hi Tony

I am certain that the police list of Eddowes' possessions did not appear in the press at the time of the murders in exactly the same way that it appeared in the PRO files. However, I believe there was indeed a press report that listed a number of things that were found in Eddowes' possession. In fact, I think it is at variance with the police list, with more items being listed in the press article than in the official list. What is vital though is the words "tin match box empty" that appears both in the police list published in 1988 and the Diary.

Tony, I think what is interesting at this point of time is the divergence of thoughts on the origin of the Diary. That is, what Keith Skinner told the audience at the Trial of James Maybrick last month, that a jury would be convinced that the Diary came out of Battlecrease House, and the insistence by Australian Steve Powell that the Diary was hoaxed in Australia, where Anne Graham worked as a nurse in 1970-1975. The two stories could not be more contrary and it will be fascinating to see how the story resolves itself and whether we will ultimately learn the truth behind the origins of the Diary.

All my best

Chris

Hi Tony and Chris.

Chris.
I hope you don’t mind your Liverpool website turning into a mini JTR “Casebook”, but I for one find it quite fascinating to hear the views of you two guys coming at the Maybrick cause from opposite sides of the fence as it were.

Tony.
I don’t have any great revelations about the origins of the watch, but my own version of events makes a lot more sense, to me at least, than Albert perpetrating a con that he would have needed a time machine to bring off successfully.

We know from Harrison that when Battlecrease was cleared after James’ death most of the contents were auctioned off by Michael. The inventory of the house included a gold pocket watch, so we’re told, and yet when the auction actually took place there was no watch in the sale. Clearly somebody removed it from the house before the contents were carted off, and as far as I can see this could only have been done by one of the family, one of the servants, or close acquaintances who might still have access to the house.

The watch as it is now has the initials J.O. professionally engraved on the back. Not near the JTR markings but on a cartouche especially designed for the purpose. These cartouches are nearly always left empty on examples seen today, but there was always the option to put your initials there if you wanted to. (James must have preferred the blank option, as was usual. J)

The nursemaid at Battlecrease who preceded the appropriately named Nurse Yapp, had left and married by the time James died, and the man she married was one John Over!

I don’t think J.O. is a particularly common set of initials and I find this quite intriguing. We know from Florrie’s letters that Nurse Over was still very much in touch with the family at the time, and it seems to me more than possible that the watch was taken by one of the servants and passed to Nurse Over, or that she even took it herself as a souvenir.

The Maybrick servants were a nasty backbiting bunch by all accounts, and I can just picture Nurse Over or her husband putting those JTR scratches there as a sort of sick joke against an unpopular employer, and thinking it hilarious, never intending it to be seen by anyone else or causing such violent controversy 100 years later.

If the watch was created as a hoax, intended to deceive, why the hell wasn’t the “O” polished out and replaced with an “M”?

This all fits nicely with all of the dating evidence we have to date, which is more than you can say for any theory involving a late 80s, early 90s date for the scratches.

Like I said, just my theory, but I’ll hold onto it as a real possibility until somebody comes up with a better one!

Regards to all.

Paul

Hi Paul

I am pleased to discuss the "problem" of the existence of the Maybrick Diary so go right ahead. That is what the thread and the forum are for, after all, to discuss topics of interest to the forum members.

In regard to Nurse Over somehow coming into possession of Maybrick's watch, that seems to me yet another stretch since she had left JM's employ and married by the time of her former employer's demise. But it wouldn't be the first time that unlikely scenarios have been suggested for things Maybrick-connected, as you know! :002:

All the best

Chris

Over and out - as it were.

Hi Paul, Hi Chris,

Mr Butler, you are just the kind of guy I have been trying to meet on the JTR casebook (without much luck!)! I love it when someone has the ability to 'think outside the envelope' and from what you have posted on here it's obvious to me that you can!! Mind you, I must also say at this point that it is just as good to have someone like Chris on board to keep both of our feet on the ground but CONSTRUCTIVELY. If only the lot on the casebook could be like this we might actually get somewhere! Considering how a lot of the servants at Battlecrease House seemed to act in James and Florries employ, I think your theory about nurse Over and Alice Yapp could easily be a valid solution to the watch mystery. I believe Trevor Christies book mentions somewhere that James was frequently unhappy with the servants in his employ (in particular the gardener can't recall his name grrr!!!). I also feel that a lot of the female servants did not approve of Florrie and James's union and may well have felt a certain resentment over her arrival. I get a feeling that, though only his housekeeper, Alice Yapp may have been rather fond herself on Mr Maybrick (who knows with James's appetite he may even have had a sexual liason with her) and so may well have wished to keep the 'masters watch' for herself after his death. It's even possible that Michael Maybrick could have presented her with the watch in recognition of all the good service she had provided James over the years and throughout his final illness. If this was the case it might explain why it was listed on the itinery of possesions you mention but never sold at the auction. Michael was not a scruplious man on the evidence of how he dealt with James's estate anyway as a lot of the furniture etc that was supposed to have been the childrens was sold off by him against James's wishes.
Do you know any more about when nurse over and /or John over died? What happened to their possesions after their death? Were there children from the union? If a link to the Overs could be proved it would add considerable weight to the credibility of the watch at least.
The diary however is a very different beast! I'm really intrigued by Steve Powell's story and belive that he at least feels what he is telling us is the truth. Thing is though, the tin match box problem again gets in the way if you want to believe the date he gives of 1969-75. To believe this you have to believe that from AUSTRALIA they somehow managed to get access to the officially SEALED archives to see the police itinery list. For me, this is far more unlikely than my theory that Anne Graham DID have the original copy of James's diary and that she and Steven Park used most of what was in that for inspiration to create the diary we now have. The passages about the tin match box and 'oh costly intercourse of death' could have been late additions by Mike Barrett (Powell say's he thinks Mike added to Parks original). It's all very confusing now and hard (even for me!) to come up with a feasible explaination...

Oh well, over to you!

All the best,

Tony.

Hello Chris and Tony.

Sorry to take a while to get back to you on this but I’ve just had a lovely week off!!

Chris.

My speculation around the watch’s origins is of course just that. Speculation. Nevertheless it’s the only scenario I can come up with that fits all the known facts without having to bend or ignore some of them completely. It’s interesting you think Nurse Over should be out of the picture as she had left Battlecrease by the time of James’ death. One of Florrie’s letters sent from prison specifically stated that she would prefer Nurse Over to look after the children. This would be in preference to any of the family doing so, or even the present nursemaid Yapp. This to me implies that at the very least the two women remained close, and that Nurse Over remained a familiar face to the Maybrick children at Battlecrease.

Tony.

Thanks for your kind words. “Thinking outside the envelope” is the only way anybody is ever likely to solve this mess I think. The trouble is that so many views on both sides are so heavily biased with people’s own prejudices that sometimes minor but interesting little snippets that might just help piece the whole thing together tend to get swamped. It’s like Feldman’s book. It’s full of some really interesting and worthwhile research, and yet a lot of this seems to get lost due to his tendency, to put it mildly, of leaping to astonishing conclusions to suit his own views and adding two and two to make ten!

I’m still trying, when I have the time, to chase up on the watch further and see if I can confirm, (or deny!), my strong belief that the scratches are a lot older than many seem to hope they are. I am fairly sure I know what H 9/3, (one of the neater scratches that is nothing to do with the “Maybrick” ones), means, but I’ve got to do a bit more checking on that. Not that it’ll help a lot, but would be good evidence that the scratches are decades old.

As for the diary, I have indeed waded through the tedium of the supposed Australian provenance. The manner of its appearance, in such an awful attempted theatrical way, and the fact that there is not a shred of evidence to back it up leaves me stone cold. As I see it we now have three provenances for the blessed thing. An unsubstantiated tale from a Scouser scrap dealer who likes a drink, an unsubstantiated tale from a long-winded Australian source that appears to be little more than attention seeking, and an unsubstantiated tale from a respected Ripper author with impeccable credentials.

No prizes for guessing which I prefer! I just hope Keith Skinner doesn’t keep us dangling forever, but of course if he’s right, then there would be some pretty serious repercussions for quite a few people due to the questionable ownership of the diary! That, I would guess, might need some serious sorting out before going public.

As for the Tin matchbox and Costly intercourse, well the matchbox doesn’t bother me as much as the intercourse, if I’m allowed to say that, but I think this post’s longs enough as it is.

Regards to you both.

Paul

Well just maybe, just maybe, I'll do my homework on this one. The so-called 'fact' that Maybrick was an old Collegiate Boy, seems to be based on the same premise that most of the stuff I have read suggests he was ALSO Jack The Ripper. Arguments from silence are sometimes very misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WilliamBrown

Well just maybe, just maybe, I'll do my homework on this one. The so-called 'fact' that Maybrick was an old Collegiate Boy, seems to be based on the same premise that most of the stuff I have read suggests he was ALSO Jack The Ripper. Arguments from silence are sometimes very misleading.

---

Hi William

I am not sure this is given out as "fact" that Maybrick attended Liverpool Collegiate. In Shirley Harrison's The Diary of Jack the Ripper (Hyperion, 1993), p. 19, it is simply noted, "James probably attended Liverpool College, like [brother] Michael [Maybrick], but records were lost during World War II." If you can find any information to deny or confirm the claim I would be most interested.

Chris

Hi All,

Paul: I think your thoughts on the diary are both fair and understandable. I am really interested though in hearing what evidence Keith Skinner will eventually put forward to link the diary to Battlecrease House. The more arguement I have heard from the anti-diary camp the more I believe in my theory that perhaps the diary we have is a transcript of sorts.
To head for cuckoo land here HA HA I have been reading a book by Pamela Ball lately. Keith Skinner was apparently also involved in a psychic investigation that she performed into the ripper case. Not one to hold a lot of weight with whjat psychics say, I cannot provide any proof to say that they are all fakes either. Interestingly in her book, Ball suggests that James Maybrick was responsible for the Stride murder but she does not feel he had a connection (directly) to the others. She DOES claim however that James seems to have KNOWLEDGE of the other murders. Intreguingly therefore, if any truth at all was in this story, the man whom we call Jack The Ripper may not only have been 2 people not one and quite possibly could have been the 'lookout' that chased Israel Schwartz away (if he did indeed see the man that did kill Stride). Ball comes to the conclusion about the diary that James Maybrick DID write about the murders but she says this was on 'piles of papers'. The diary she feels is a transcript made AFTER James's death by James Maybrick.....HIS SON.
Chris: Do you know of any existing examples of James Chandler Maybricks handwriting? Have these ever been compared to that which is in the diary?
I know this is all pretty 'pigs may fly' but I find it all kind of interesting in a fun way. Has anyone else on here ever had any dealings with a psychic? Can anyone vouch for them?

Maybrick aside, I do think that there is a distinct possibility that the murders may NOT in fact have been by the same hand. If this is true, it would help to explain why the police got nowhere with their investigations at the time and why we've not been able to sucessfully pin all the murders onto a single candidate since. How about, Tumblety did Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes, James Maybrick Elizabeth Stride, Joseph Barnett or George Hutchinson Mary Kelly and someone else Martha Tabram and or Polly Nichols!

All the best,

Tony.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1154/...19aa607e_o.jpg

James Maybrick readily showed everyone that he was from Liverpool because he was wheeling one of Lewis's down the street.

Hi Tony.

You’re asking the wrong man about Mediums I’m afraid. If I can’t see it , hear it or eat it I don’t believe it!!

Have you ever seen that awful fake programme “Most Haunted”? The Medium on that contacted both Florrie Maybrick and JTR himself once I recall. What a farce? JTR is apparently haunting the wrong part of town at the moment as they were in the basement of a West end theatre at the time.

Seriously I have read the book you refer to. I think I got it for a quid in one of those cheapo bookshops. I’m afraid I was unimpressed.

Whatever the diary is or isn’t, I’m sure the suggestion that it was copied from a pile of papers is at least correct. It’s just a shame we don’t know by whom or when quite yet.

Have you seen the Maybrick discussion over on JTR forums? Its positively civilised over there, and for the first time in years you can discuss things without having to wade through line after line of the same old repetative stuff repeated ad infinitum. It’s worth a look.

Hi Chris
Love the cartoon.

Paul

Hi Paul, Chris and Everyone!

Well, I've been away from here for a long time haven't I! Still, the JTR discussions can only go so far without new material to 'chew the cud over can't it'. I can confidently predict however that things will soon liven up considerably on that front (mark these words!!). Talking of Jack(poss James) I have been busy working on a lot of projects while I've been away. As well as recording and performing in a vocal group calleed Breeze (see www.fromsidleywithlove.com), I have recorded a solo album 'Songs From The End Of The Pier' and am currently in the process of recording a 'poetry album' called 'In Words, In Music'. The idea of the 'poetry' album is to finally make some use of a lot of the poems/short stories/prose that I have written over the years. My producer Harvey Summers and I have been trying to create a 'collage of words, sounds and music' to take the listener on an emotional journey. Anyway, one of the segments on the album is about Jack The Ripper. It's a three and a half minute piece called 'A Researchers Nightmare' and portrays the story of a guy's scary journey back to his hotel in Whitechapel in the dark after a long day's researching...his mind plays a few tricks on him I can tell you! I think followers of the case like yourselves will like it and find it fun. The albums not finished yet so it's not commercially available but I have offered it to Chris Jones for use on his James Maybrick website so it could appear there soon. I will keep you posted!

Well, hope you are all fine,

All the best,

Tony.

Currently on ebay:

MRS. MAYBRICK'S OWN STORY: MY FIFTEEN LOST YEARS

by Florence Elizabeth Maybrick

Autograph Edition

NY: Funk & Wagnalls, 1905; pp 394 + halftone photo illustrations, bound in original blue cloth hardcover binding.

Signed by the author, Mrs. Maybrick, under her frontispiece photo.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Florence-Maybric...QQcmdZViewItem

Excerpt from the description:

"James Maybrick was born on 24 October 1838 in the slums of Liverpool, Lancashire, the son of William Maybrick, an Engineer, and his wife, Susanna." (Emphasis added.)

-- I think the Maybricks might well have been surprised to know they lived in slums. Yes there were slums in Liverpool at the time but not at the downtown Liverpool location, off Church Street, where James was born. :PDT_Xtremez_42:

Chris

sorry to say that battlecrease house has been demolished and is now so called luxury apartments. personally i think its a disgrace and whoever sanctioned it should be taken across the road to the cricket club and used as wickets next time lancashire play there.