James Maybrick

[Jericho]

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.

[TonyMay]

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.

[TonyMay]

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.

[Paul Butler]

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!

[ChrisGeorge]

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

[Paul Butler]

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.

[TonyMay]

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.

[Paul Butler]

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

[ChrisGeorge]

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

[Paul Butler]

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

[TonyMay]

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.

[ChrisGeorge]

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

[Paul Butler]

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

[ChrisGeorge]

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!

All the best

Chris

[Ged]

Over and out - as it were.