Diary of a Hoaxer

[Mike Covell]

Diary----Hoax----Whitechapel----What??

Hull Times Jan 19th 1889
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/diaryhoax.jpg

[Caroline Morris]

Nice find, Mike. :kiss:

The first piece is fairly typical of the humorous articles and serialisations appearing in Punch, 1888-89. Hoaxes, practical jokes and diaries seem to have been all the rage in the LVP one way or t'other. It's not something I can believe the Barretts of Goldie Street would have picked up on and taken advantage of circa 1989, but I'm reasonably confident that whoever did create the Maybrick Diary would have been familiar with the genre. I can see an awful lot of black humour within its 63 pages, much of it at the expense of James Maybrick, diarist and poet (not to mention infamous "whore" taker!) The trick is to try and work out what is intentional and what goes over the author's head just as much as it evidently goes over Sir Jim's. It borders on farce at times.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kim Ross]

Gday. So who did write the diary? I've never believed it was Maybrick. To me it all points to someone post 1988. I have no idea who it is but I do not believe the diary to be real. The provenance has too many stories and let's face it they're all basically squirrelly.

Cheers:noidea:

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Kim,

The provenance might have too many stories, but the diary must have been somewhere before it reached Mike Barrett's hands (unless you believe he was a major participant in its creation) and Keith Skinner, who revealed the existence of documentation which indicates that the diary came from Battlecrease House, doesn't tell 'stories'. That's very much Mike Barrett's domain. ;)

I have to take the documentation extremely seriously because I have seen it for myself. Obviously anyone who hasn't is perfectly free to continue believing in a modern hoax conspiracy involving one or other of the Barretts, if the evidence points that way for them. Personally, I cannot accept any of the modern creation scenarios, any more than I can believe that it was James himself who committed the murders and composed the diary. There is evidence against the former, while there is no evidence for the latter.

Currently I tend to think it was someone who thought James ripe for 'setting up' after his death, in the wake of the right royal setting up of his widow, Florie. It need not have been a serious attempt to frame James - more of a very dark practical joke intended for anyone finding such a diary in the Maybrick house. I'm thinking someone who knew of Jim's seedier side and disliked the man intensely for it, and who also had access to more ripper information than the general public at the time (via a friend at Scotland Yard perhaps).

Love,

Caz
X

[Kim Ross]

Gday. So where did it come from? I'd really like to know. Who would have been smart enough to decide on Maybrick and yes it's all very compelling on the surface but as you've agreed the provenance isn't there. So what would make Skinner believe it to be true?

Cheers

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Caz

Keith Skinner, who revealed the existence of documentation which indicates that the diary came from Battlecrease House

Now you know I am a tolerant chappie.....but the above is a bit misleading.

Thats like revealing the existence of Bigfoot. He has revealed the existence of nothing until its shown that the documentation does what it says on the tin and that he has the documentation.

Now this fabled documentation is creeping into position as some kind of reality.

So far example, if I say "I have a signed letter from Maybrick in his hadwriting that says he was the ripper".

That has the same veracity as Skinner saying he has this documentation.

yet no one would consider it fair to then say "lars has a letter showing maybrick was the ripper".

The less said about Skinners papers the better perhaps. Until he eventually deigns it appropriate to publish them.

p

[Caroline Morris]

Gday. So where did it come from? I'd really like to know. Who would have been smart enough to decide on Maybrick and yes it's all very compelling on the surface but as you've agreed the provenance isn't there. So what would make Skinner believe it to be true?

Cheers

Eh?

As I just posted, my own understanding is that it has a Battlecrease provenance, so I can hardly be agreeing with you that the provenance isn't there, unless you mean one going back to before it arrived in the house, and I can't help you there! :)

Oodles of people from May 1889 onwards could have been 'smart' enough to decide on Maybrick and who says Keith believes 'it' to be true? Coming out of Battlecrease wouldn't make the diary 'true', as in a genuine confession by James Maybrick, and Keith has never said it does.

Hi Mr P,

Ok, sorry. I should have said that Keith claimed that the documentation exists, rather than revealed its existence. It's just that it seems a bit silly for me to use the word 'claimed' when I know very well that it exists.

But fair play to you - Keith and I merely claim that documentation exists, indicating that the diary came out of the house. And once again, people are perfectly free to believe he made it up for the hell of it and I thought it would be a jolly good wheeze to follow suit.

Nothing I can do about that at all.

But if you think I'm going to sit back smugly and let people carry on speculating about modern forgers beavering away in the late 1980s/early 1990s, without suggesting that they might wish to bear in mind what Keith said last year, you can think again. ;)

Love,

Caz
X

[Kim Ross]

Gday. So what is the provenance that you have that it came from Battlecrease?

Cheers

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Caz

At the risk of sounding Omlorian:


when I know very well that it exists.

have you seen it? Im not asking so I can later spend hours reconstructing your words to make you a liar.......but I am interested to know if it actually exists and that more than just K. Skinner has seen it. Or are you just taking his word for it?

Again....Im not being a brat. But if you have seen it....that would be interesting.

I still think it was highly irresponsible of him to mention it if he had no intention of producing it toot sweet so people could judge.

It did the whole thing no favours at all. "I have a cure for cancer but Im not telling anyone what it is".

You can see how its open to attack.

p

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Mr P, Kim, All,

Yes of course I can see how it's open to attack, Mr P. I don't think I've ever expressed any surprise that Keith has been attacked for it, and that I have been too.

Once again for the record, I did not know what form Keith's talk in May last year would take, or what it would include, and it took me by surprise as much as anyone when he said what he said about the diary and Battlecrease House. He later explained (and I'm sure I have already posted this information) that his statement was made in direct response to a direct question that was put to him.

I did already know, however, about the Battlecrease documentation because I had read it and summarised it for my ongoing diary time-line, which I have been working on since before Ripper Diary was even commissioned. When I get passed any relevant material it goes into the time-line as and when I can give it my full attention.

However (and this addresses your question, Kim), the research itself, which produced the Battlecrease documentation, was not commissioned, financed or undertaken by yours truly. I merely offered some suggestions, based on the existing documentation, which were then taken up and run with by the professionals.

In short, I am not at liberty to reveal the nature of any unpublished documentation, and have to wait like just everyone else for further details to emerge. I don't know when that is likely to be, nor what form it will take.

I have been criticised for saying too much and for saying too little, so I'm not going to worry about being criticised for reminding people, whenever I feel it's appropriate, that the documentation exists.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr.Invisible]

Its time for my stupid question of the week.

When you (all) talk of the diary having provenance, does you mean the book alone (covers), or do you mean the book including its current contents (diary entries).

Mart

[Kim Ross]

Gday. I am not an expert so I can't answer your question. Caroline, I believe that your intentions about the diary are sincere and you want to know the truth like everone else. You know much more about it and the players involved than I do.

Cheers

[Paul Butler]

Hi Both.

The "Battlecrease" provenence for the diary covers the whole thing, words and all.

That bit at least we do know for sure.

regards.

Paul