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.