General

[admin tim]

Thread for general discussion of forgery methods, mechanics, examples, and so forth as they might pertain to the Maybrick Diary.

[admin tim]

Few things in Ripperology have been as mysterious – or as annoying – as the purported Maybrick Diary. Having been in the public eye since 1993, the Diary, as we will call it here, has both its ardent advocates and its dedicated detractors. Few are neutral on the subject – you generally either believe it to be genuine or you despise the thing. Most Ripper Authorities, Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow foremost among them, now refuse to participate in any discussion of its authenticity, and the majority of Ripperologists wish that it would simply go away, all of these firmly believing it to be a forgery, and a poor quality forgery at that.

Exactly why anyone without a financial interest in the Diary would so fervently and confidently (and sometimes rabidly) believe it to be genuine in the first place is somewhat of a mystery in itself, given its many recognized shortcomings, a concise summary of which is reproduced here, courtesy of Christopher George and Casebook: Jack the Ripper:

“Here's a list of deficits that the Diary possesses.

1. Not in James Maybrick's handwriting.
2. Contains wording identical to a police list only made public in 1988 ("One tin matchbox empty").
3. Gets placement of body parts in 13 Miller's Court wrong.
4. Says that Diarist took refreshment in the Poste House, a Liverpool pub not called by that name in 1888, and not known as "The Poste House" until recent decades, it having been previously known as "The Muck Midden."
5. Gets the claim to fame of Michael Maybrick, the Diarist's brother, wrong--he's a composer not a lyricist.
6. Not written in an actual diary but in an old photograph album or scrapbook.
7. Sixty three pages crudely cut out of the front of the book.
8. Has no provenance and cannot be proven to ever have been in the possession of James Maybrick.
9. Emulates the bantering style of the Jack the Ripper letters in terms of taunting the police but does not use the name "Jack the Ripper" until the final page when the writer signs the document "Yours truly Jack the Ripper" the same way the Dear Boss letter of 25 September 1888 is signed.
10. Despite there being evidently missing pages in the beginning of the book, the story appears whole, beginning with Maybrick planning his murder spree and ending with his death.
11. Contains no new information about the Ripper case or about the Maybrick family, with the possible exception of details about two possible Manchester murders and a Liverpool neighbor named Mrs. Hammersmith.

Given this list of dud notes rung by the Diary, and there may be more, but particularly points 2 and 4 above, is it any wonder that most of us are skeptical of the story told by Anne Graham that the artifact has been in her family since the 1950's when the indications appear to be that it is likely more recent?”

- Christopher T. George

[admin tim]

Yet the Diary really cannot be dismissed so easily, and the many derogatory comments made about the Diary, its various owners, impresario, and supporters are mostly crude, sarcastic, or personal insults, for its detractors literally gnash their teeth in frustration that no one has thus far been able to definitively prove it to be a hoax. Its supporters gleefully point this out at every opportunity, and as a result, any open debate on the Diary usually turns acrimonious in a hurry. However, despite the hazards generally associated with Diary discussion on websites such as Casebook: Jack the Ripper, there remain numerous alternative websites and message boards, where true believers can and do congregate en masse to discuss the Diary and James Maybrick in relative safety.

The last decade has seen numerous individuals identified as the probable forger and/or penman of the Diary, names such as Kane, Devereaux, Graham, and Barrett. The latter has been disparaged by practically every Ripperologist who has followed the Diary saga since its inception. “A drunkard”, “a liar”, “a scouser” are some of the more polite terms that have been applied to Mr. Barrett, whose role has now been reduced by general consensus to that of ‘placer’, ‘dupe’, or ‘fall guy’. Yes, it appears that few Ripperologists now believe that Mike Barrett was even capable of executing such a forgery, mainly due to his later aberrant behavior and shenanigans wherein he did apparently try to claim credit for just that very act, but appeared to fail miserably at it.

[admin tim]

Practically everyone does seem to agree that Mike Barrett knows more about the Diary than he is telling. But did he really fail in an honest effort at convincing others that he had forged the Diary as he had said, or did he instead succeed at achieving a hidden agenda, one so unlikely that no one would ever suspect it of him? Thereby hangs a quite remarkable tale of another of the unlikeliest of forgers, one operating under the most unlikely circumstances imaginable, yet who was subtle enough and talented enough to have fooled document collectors and experts around the world, including those in the FBI, time and time again.

The story of this master forger, Mark Hofmann, has been chronicled in several books, the most familiar and best of which are titled “The Mormon Murders” and “Salamander”. CourtTV has an excellent capsule summary of the former on their fine website, www.crimelibrary.com (http://www.crimelibrary.com), and its content is quoted extensively herein. Outwardly, Mark Hofmann was a faithful and believing Latter-day Saint (Mormon), but he had in fact furtively adopted an atheistic position and a secret anarchistic agenda. He was motivated to forge a quantity of documents by a lust for wealth and a desire to embarrass and damage the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the doctrine of which, incredibly, he did not believe a word, although he had risen therein to the position of presiding ward bishop.

Few people outside of the LDS Church appreciate just how unlikely it is that a Mormon bishop would be involved in any type of public misbehavior, much less actual crimes such as forgery and murder. The Mormon faith is perhaps the most demanding in Christianity, and it possesses a rigid code of morals and conduct that are difficult for those not of the faith to comprehend or follow. For example, practicing Mormons do not drink alcohol or use tobacco, consider pornography to be a tool of the devil, use no profanity, and abstain from premarital and extramarital sex. And all this applies to just the lay members; the higher up in the church one is, the personal standards are commensurately higher. To become a bishop, which office corresponds approximately to that of a pastor of a mainstream Protestant congregation, one must possess a long history of exemplary behavior and service to the church. Personal interviews are often conducted with friends and associates as to a candidate's moral and spiritual qualifications for the office. As there is no paid or professional clergy in the LDS Church, being a bishop is akin to having a second full-time job, for nearly all church officers work a regular job to support their families, in addition to the considerable time required for discharge of their appointed church duties. A bishop customarily holds the position for about 5 years, at which time a successor is named to the office by his superior, usually the Stake President. We're talking dedication here, in addition to the extraordinary personal standards naturally required for the position. And, as any legal infraction more serious than a speeding ticket is cause enough to cost a bishop his appointment to the office, it is safe to say that major transgressions do not occur very often. Those that do, however, can be astonishing in their breadth and depth, as we will see.