James Maybrick

[TonyMay]

Hi Chris/Everyone,

I have uploaded with this message a photo of the examples of handwriting given to me by my school teacher I mentioned in an earlier post.
I hope you all appreciate my efforts today! I spent most of this morning rummaging through boxes in my atic looking for this. Ironically in the end I found it in a tin in an upstairs cupboard!
I must admit however that I did mis-remember the name of the teacher that had given it to me. It was not a Mr May but a Mr Ricketts who's class I was in at the Grove School in Hastings in 1980. I swear to God and on my mothers life that these passages were written in front of my own eyes and that they are genuine.
As far as proving or disproving my point that the handwriting style of the diary is not of the upmost importance however, being objective and fair, I think the jury's still out. While these examples of handwriting are quite different (especially the third example) and show different tendencies in the way that the downstrokes of the y's etc are formed, I can see myself that all three still look as if they have been made by the same hand. Not having seen that many examples of James Maybricks handwriting (I am EXCLUDING his will as I feel it ungenuine) I am therefore unable to say wether the writing style of the diary is or is not THAT dissimilar to James known hand. Perhaps you could help out there Chris?
So guy's over to you, what arte your thoughts now?

Best Regards,

Tony.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Tony

I don't find the writing examples you have provided to be so extraordinarily different that they could not have been made by the same individual. Variations in writing style might be due to illness or age and infirmity, for example. A handwriting expert recently looked at the writing of Detective Superintendent Donald Swanson annotating the memoirs of his superior, Sir Robert Anderson, deputy commissioner of the Yard at the time of the Ripper murders, and the expert could not be entirely sure whether the notations, made years apart, were by the same person. Certainly in the samples you show, the signatures in two of the samples are fairly similar -- the top one and the bottom one -- while the one in the middle is different because the writer uses block letters instead of cursive style for the initials, and the signature just looks more formal than the scrawl used to write the other two signatures.

Tony, you talked about something being "too good to be true", and that is just how I feel about the Maybrick candidacy, that when I first heard about Maybrick being touted as the Ripper, I could not believe it. Knowing previously about the Maybrick case, and having read Trevor Christie's book before the Diary surfaced, I was just astounded that Maybrick might have been the Ripper, and it just seemed unlikely to me.

Now, of course it would be foolish to close the door on him having done the murders. Conceivably he could have been the Whitechapel murderer and the Diary still be a hoax. As you probably know, it has been suggested that possibly allies of Florence Maybrick might have written the Diary to help with her case, to get her out of jail. I suppose that is not unimpossible (there's a double negative for you!) that she might have had some suspicion he could have been the murderer and someone took that suspicion and manufactured the Diary. One of the things that intrigues me is to find out who wrote the Diary and why.

Best regards

Chris

[Hargy]

Hi,
Just wanted to say hello. I've just signed up to this forum. I see that you are not a believer in the James Maybrick theory. I have to say that I am.
I have been a keen ripperologist for many years and have a vast collection of ripper paraphernalia.
I have very recently been lucky enough to acquire a 1st edition signed copy of Mrs Maybricks Own Story 'My lost fifteen years' . When I have had the chance to read it (it will probably take me some time as I feel that I will have to read it whilst wearing gloves!) I will be able to hopefully increase my knowledge and conclude my personal belief, that James Maybrick really was Jack the ripper.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
All the best
Hargy.(Sue)

[TonyMay]

Hi Sue/Chris/Everyone.

Sue...
Nice to hear from another pro-diaryist and I'm very envious about you getting your hands on a copy of Mrs Maybricks book. I have to say however (and no doubt Chris will know about this also) that according to the reports I've heard about the book it dosen't actually shed much light on James maybrick at all more on Florrie's life in prison. As I've posted here before Sue the book you really need to learn about James is 'Etched In Arsenic' by Trevor Christie or (to a lesser degree) 'The Poisoned Life Of Mrs Maybrick' by Bernard Ryan.

Chris...

Thanks so much for the tip off about the Australian connection to the origin of the diary. So far I have read the first five pages of the forum and must say that I've found it extremely interesting. I have, despite being very much a believer in the diary, long thought that it was possible that the version of the diary that Anne Graham gave to Mike Barrett was not the original. As you and so many other people correctly point out the handwriting in the diary is of considerable concern to those of us that believe that the words were indeed written by James Maybrick. To my mind at least the story about this Steven Park may have some truth in it in the respect that the guy sounds to me to have the right kind of psychological profile for the job. If the diary that we all know (and love! HA HA HA) is a word for word copy of the ORIGINAL version then it would explain why what the diary tells us is so compelling but the provenence and the handwriting are not. The Aussie guy that tells us about Steven Park (can't recall what his name was grrr) places these events around the late 1960's. According to Anne Graham I believe she says that she did not go to Australia until 1970 but then again if Anne was indeed in cohoots with Park she probably would claim this. However the point I'm trying to make is that IF these events really did happen I believe that I am correct when I say that knowledge of the Tin matchbox was not in the public domain until 1987. If I am correct about this then it is fair to assume I feel that whoever forged the diary that we now have MUST have been copying from a manuscript or document from the period of the murders. If this is also correct then I could be right that the diary we have is NOT the original. For me the diary just contains so much that makes sense about the murders to be a fake. The psychology is pretty water tight too and the forgers have just had too much 'luck' concerning known events. Then of course there is the sheer amount of research and reading that they would have to have done to produce something like the diary. I also point out here Chris that should they have done such an amount of research why would they then deliberately fly in the face of what most books on the ripper would tell them namely that Jamnes Maybrick 'claims' in the diary to have been responsible for the Dear Boss letter. Personally I don't think that James did write the ORIGINAL Dear Boss letter but, as a killer following press reports of his deeds at the time, decided to 'adopt' the first one and send a few 'follow up's' of his own.
I believe that James WAS responsible for the letter that was written on the front of a newspaper ( the one with the Liverpool businessman story Chris) and possibly others (one in particular gave the police the address that he was living at in the Liverpool area...on checking this I found that the nearby street had James in the title...another of James's 'funny little jokes' I believe.
God, haven't I been going On! Better stop there and give you lot a chance to reply!

ALL hands on deck, prepare to repel boarders!! HA HA HA HA

Tony.

[Hargy]

Hi Tony ,
Thanks for the reply I can see I'm going to have lots of fun on this forum and since speaking to you I have now acquired 'Etched in Arsenic' how spooky is that? And by the way I'm not loaded,I've just been in the right place at the right time !
Speak soon
Sue.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Sue and Tony

Welcome to the forum, Sue. I hope you enjoy your time here. I was interested to learn that like Tony you are a Maybrickite! Obviously I am not, as you read above, although I am fascinated by the "mystery" of how the Diary came to be. As I noted in my last posting, it is not outside the realm of possibility that James Maybrick could have been the Ripper, but I don't think the Diary, as it exists, proves that he was, first and foremost because it is not in his handwriting. The possibility that there could have been an earlier version of the Diary in James's writing has been suggested before, although one would think that the best proof that Maybrick was the Ripper would be to produce that original diary. What happened to it... if it ever existed???

Chris

[TonyMay]

Hi Sue,

Well done! You will enjoy that book I can tell you. For me it really brought to life the whole picture of Maybricks life. Without giving too much away, the book does include a reference from a small American girl that from time to time stayed with the Maybricks (can't recall her name now) that James did possess a fearsome temper. Obviously this is in no way evidence that he was Jack The Ripper but it does I feel add a little weight to the psychology of the writing in the diary. "Tonight I shall reward myself, I will visit mine, but I will not be gentle I will show my ***** what I am capable of". In fact Florrie herself advised Alfred Brierley (the man with whom she was having an affair) to think about leaving the country as she feared if 'Jim' were to find out he'd kill him.
Anyway, I shall rant on no more except to say ENJOY! ENJOY!

All the best,

Tony.

P.S) Oh, I forgot to tell you, the copy I have of the book cropped up at the very first bookshop I looked in right at the start of my interest in the diary. I've not seen another copy since...perhaps my role in all of this is to be James's witness! HA HA HA HA (Silly Arse)

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Tony and Sue

Tony, the correspondent you are thinking of who was the young girl who visited the Maybricks' household was Florence Aunspaugh, the daughter of a business acquaintance of James Maybrick's and who told her story to author Trevor Christie, author of Etched in Arsenic (1968), in the 1940's.

In verifying the spelling of her name I came across a PDF copy of Dr. William Rubinstein's "The Hunt for Jack the Ripper published in History Today in May 2000, pp. 10-19. Now Dr. Rubinstein, whom I met at the Liverpool convention at the Britannia Adelphi in 2003, is rather too much in the Diary camp for my liking -- that means of course that he is a mate of yours!

What is also odd about his article is that while Dr. Rubinstein talks about the Diary in the singular, the editor of History Today has given the article a subtitle blurb and a photo caption in which they talk about the "Ripper Diaries" a term that keeps cropping up in UK newspaper accounts of the Diary. There is and only (as far as we know) been one and only one Diary, or at least there is only one in existence now. So why that terminology keeps cropping up I don't know. It seems to partly derive from the fact that the hoax "Hitler Diaries" comprised more than one diary.

Chris

[Hargy]

Hi Tony/Chris,

Thanks for the comments. Maybe you could help me but has anyone actually proved beyond a doubt that the diary is a forgery?

To my understanding the diary was put through a number of rigorous tests ie.
on the ink itself ,and was proved to be pre 1921. As for the handwriting I understand that people suffering from a multiple-personallity disorder will write in many different ways (one for each personality) so what is to say that this was not the case?
If the ink tests pre-date it to 1921 then then how did the writer acquire so much information? The only people with so much information would have been some of the policemen who worked on the case or the killer himself.
Kind regards, Sue.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Sue

No the Diary has not been conclusively proven to be a hoax because no one has been proven conclusively to have forged it.

Obviously scientific tests are not always accurate and often they will rely on a control sample that might be contaminated, for example. So I am not sure of the ink test that gave a date of circa 1920 to the Diary or, for example, of the metal test that said the scratches in the alleged Maybrick watch owned by Albert Johnson are "decades old." But yes I will admit that those results were found.

However, anti-Diarists, such as myself, point out that the wording in the Diary, "one tin match box empty" also found in a police list only made public in 1988 and published in books thereafter. This makes a number of us suspicious that the Diary was concocted in 1988 or later. Also the evident goof whereby the Poste House in Cumberland Street is given that name in the Diary, though some argue another place informally given that name might have been meant, was named the Muck Midden in 1888-1889.

Chris

[Jericho]

What about this:

http://www.casebook.org/suspects/jam...con.bjan5.html

[ChrisGeorge]

What about this:

http://www.casebook.org/suspects/jam...con.bjan5.html

Hello Jericho

Michael Barrett's confessions are the subject of controversy. He has since retracted what he said, and his confessions might be down to his drinking problem or a sudden desire to lay claim to producing the Diary whose origins are not totally clear to investigators who have looked into his confessions and into the Diary itself. For example, Mr. Barrett claims that he bought the book for the Diary from the auctioneers Outhwaite & Litherland. It is a Victorian scrapbook or commonplace book which may have contained photographs -- the first sixty odd pages were cut out. But his story has not been verified by the auctioneers -- in fact they said they do not conduct auctions in the manner that Mr. Barrett has described.

Chris

[Hargy]

Hi Chris,

I would be interested to know if you have any opinions on who you think could be a possible suspect.

Cheers, sue.

[Jericho]

Unless I'm missing something, the diary is so obviously a hoax. Why does anyone give it the time of day? Of course, this doesn't mean that Maybrick could not be the ripper.

What reason did Barrett give for retracting his confession? The calculated and carefully planned way in which Barrett went about the hoax indicates to me that whatever his problems were with booze, he was able to think lucidly when he needed to.

Why do people think that Florence poisoned her husband? He sure looks like a psychopath but then so does nearly everyone else in the rogues' gallery of potential rippers. Maybe it was something about the manner in which photographs were taken in those days?

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Jericho

Mike Barrett appeared at the Cloak and Dagger Club in April 1999 and gave a very incoherent performance. He has contradicted himself on a number of occasions. He is supposed to appear at the Maybrick Trial in May at the Liverpool Cricket Club.

Chris Jones, organizer of the 19–20 May 2007 event at the Cricket Club says: ‘Michael Barrett, the man who brought the so-called Ripper Diary to the attention of the world, is to attend the Trial of James Maybrick. Mr Barrett who, by his own admission, led a rather turbulent and troubled life since the diary came to light, now feels that his problems are all behind him and he wants to put the record straight. He wants to tell the full and truthful story of how he came into possession of the diary and how the pressure of the world’s media affected his health. He is also prepared to answer questions from the audience.’ We will just wait and see.

Barrett's written confessions admittedly do sound as if he could have been very organized in going about the hoax, however, as I say, everything he says does not quite pan out. The authors of Ripper Diary: The Inside Story (Sutton Publishing, 2003), Seth Linder, Caroline Morris, and Keith Skinner, don't put much store in what Barrett says and they maintain that the origins of the Diary remain murky despite all the indications that it is a forgery.

Chris