The Diary's Fingerprints

[Mr. Poster]

However, it doesn't affect the matter under discussion, namely the "Electrician Provenance" scenario, which is that the diary came to light because the electricians found it whilst working at Battlecrease. Within the parameters of this scenario, Barrett could not have taken possession of the diary before then.

THis is nonsensical within the the bounds of this argument as you have phrased it before.


You have previously argued that the probability of them finding it was 1/(365-weekends). You are accepting -clearly- that the days before March are in your consideration.

But you say that days before 1992 cannot be.

You are arguing against yourself - you say time before 1992 cannot be considerd , that the "scenario" confines us to 1992 as Barret could not have ecalled before they found it.

yet you accept - by your calculation - that he could have, for the purpose of a probability calculation - rung in february.

Before they found it.

But you say he couldnt have rung in 1991 - before they foound it - because he could nt have taken posession before they found it.

yet your calculation included January and February - before they found it.

THis is - and I dont care if you are offended or if I get a warning or this gets deleted - nonsense.

You keep repeating it, refuse to back it up, continuosly state it, ignore the fact that pretty much everyone has pointed out how wrong it is and persist in assuring us - on the basis of nothing - that you are right and evertone else is wrong.

P

[Anna Morris]

There is something I do not understand and I doubt more reading will help me understand better.

Why didn't the electricians get in trouble for keeping and sharing...eventually to be published...an historical artifact? What workers find on a job like that belongs to the property owner!

Maybe I have missed something?

[Caroline Brown]

There is something I do not understand and I doubt more reading will help me understand better.

Why didn't the electricians get in trouble for keeping and sharing...eventually to be published...an historical artifact? What workers find on a job like that belongs to the property owner!

Maybe I have missed something?

Hi Anna,

Briefly, in the early days of the rumours surrounding the electricians, the property owner, Paul Dodd, did seek to stop publication of the diary until the question of its legitimate ownership could be resolved.

The problem was that none of the electricians would admit personal involvement with its removal from Dodd's house [for obvious reasons] and doubts were introduced from other sources that it was ever there. Dodd himself was mistaken about when the work was done that required the floorboards to be lifted, which put a spanner in the works; Mike stuck like superglue to his original Devereux story, denying outright any possibility of the infinitely better provenance; and Feldman too gave up on the Battlecrease provenance in favour of researching the Barretts themselves for potential family relationships back to the Maybricks.

Dodd was at one time willing to do a deal [with Feldman IIRC, who was trying to do a deal with Mike] in exchange for a small percentage of any monies made, but Mike was having none of it, so this came to nothing. Eventually Dodd came to doubt it was found on his property, but he also said he wouldn't make a claim if that proved to be the case because he had had no knowledge it was ever there.

I'm not sure of the legal niceties here, but if Dodd is not bothered and none of the electricians is gaining from it today, I don't suppose anyone will get in much trouble if they do spill all the beans. But then, why would they?

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

Thanks for the correction, Caz. However, it doesn't affect the matter under discussion, namely the "Electrician Provenance" scenario, which is that the diary came to light because the electricians found it whilst working at Battlecrease. Within the parameters of this scenario, Barrett could not have taken possession of the diary before then.

Within the parameters of this scenario, Gareth, the electricians could only have found the diary on March 9, 1992 [the only day anyone was lifting the right floorboards] and if - as you appear to be arguing for the opposition - Mike could not have taken possession of it before then, he could not have phoned Doreen about it before then either.

Congratulations, you've just parametered yourself into the corner occupied by the "staggering coincidence"* party, from which you seem incapable of extracting yourself.

I'll put the kettle on, shall I?

*In case anyone is confused, the "staggering coincidence" would apply to the theory that the lifting of the floorboards had nothing to do with Mike's call to Doreen and both happened within hours by pure chance. Of course, if Mike's call to Doreen was a direct result of the diary's discovery earlier that day, there was no coincidence at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris G.]

Just popping in again before stuffing my suitcases...

The tiny Poste House in Cumberland Street [once known as the Muck Midden] was renamed The New Post Office in the early 1890s IIRC, when the main Liverpool Post Office was in the process of relocating to Victoria Street just up the road. I am pretty sure it had no previous postal associations, but the name - The New Post Office - was clearly coined to distinguish it from The Old Post Office, which in 1888 had been called simply The Post Office Tavern, and was situated in Old Post Office Place, off School Lane, in sight of Church Alley where the young Maybrick brothers were raised, a hop, skip and jump from Whitechapel Liverpool and a short stroll from Central Station, where the older James boarded his train back to Aigburth after a hard day's cotton merchanting [and, according to the diary, fretting about the wife's infidelities].

James's father and grandfather were both parish clerks for the church of Church Alley fame, and the tavern still called The Old Post Office today is on the site of the original coaching inn which had doubled as a post house until a separate post office was established there circa 1800, when the inn just became somewhere to take refreshment and was no longer a place for leaving and collecting one's mail - although the sign POSTE RESTANTE may well have featured prominently in either or both places. That early post office had relocated elsewhere in the City by around 1840, but the inn with its genuine historical postal associations stayed put.

When I was in Liverpool a few years back I met a lovely old chap called Tony Carroll in the Irish American Bar on Lime Street, who was into pubs and local history. I asked him if he happened to know if Liverpool had a post house and where it might be, and he immediately said it was The Old Post Office pub off School Lane, and didn't even mention The New Post Office pub that had since changed its name to the Poste House. A similar experience was had by Robert Smith a few years previously to this, when he asked the landlord of Rigby's on Dale Street the same question, and was similarly directed to the School Lane pub, even though the Cumberland Street pub is much closer to Rigby's than the other one.

But apparently personal experiences like these count for nothing at the 'other place', as if I lied about mine, or dreamed it and Tony Carroll never existed or was just talking cobblers for some unfathomable reason. We exchanged Christmas cards a few times and he would send me various newspaper clippings he thought I'd be interested in ["I seen this and thought of you"] and even invited me and my ex to his 70th birthday party, which sadly we couldn't attend, but then I moved to Devon and we lost touch and I'm not sure if he's still with us.

Anyway, make of all this what you will, and it's back to the packing for me...

Love,

Caz
X

The Old Post Office Pub, School Lane, Liverpool, June 24, 2021 by Terence (Terry) Tucker on Flickr

[Chris G.]

The trouble with Caz's argument is that the Diarist meant the Old Post Office pub and not the Poste House pub in Cumberland Street is that the Diarist expressly writes on the first page of the Diary, "I took refreshment at the Poste House. . ." And while it is true that the existing Poste House pub on Cumberland Street was not known by that name in 1888, it's just one of the many problems with the Diary. Whomever hoaxed up the Diary didn't know that it was known as "The Muck Midden" in 1888. That along with the problem that the writing in the Diary doesn't match James Maybrick's known handwriting (the argument of Shirley Harrison in 1993's The Diary of Jack the Ripper which published a facsimile and transcript of the Diary is that the handwriting discrepancy is due to the Ripper's psychological derangement). Caz's attempt to say that the Diarist really means the Old Post Office pub is weak on a number of bases. While it's true that School Lane was an area with links to the Maybrick family, Cumberland Street was closer to the Cotton Exchange where Maybrick worked, so it's a more logical place for Sir Jim to "take refreshment" rather than to trek over to the School Lane area.

[Caroline Brown]

The trouble with Caz's argument is that the Diarist meant the Old Post Office pub and not the Poste House pub in Cumberland Street is that the Diarist expressly writes on the first page of the Diary, "I took refreshment at the Poste House. . ." And while it is true that the existing Poste House pub on Cumberland Street was not known by that name in 1888, it's just one of the many problems with the Diary. Whomever hoaxed up the Diary didn't know that it was known as "The Muck Midden" in 1888. That along with the problem that the writing in the Diary doesn't match James Maybrick's known handwriting (the argument of Shirley Harrison in 1993's The Diary of Jack the Ripper which published a facsimile and transcript of the Diary is that the handwriting discrepancy is due to the Ripper's psychological derangement). Caz's attempt to say that the Diarist really means the Old Post Office pub is weak on a number of bases. While it's true that School Lane was an area with links to the Maybrick family, Cumberland Street was closer to the Cotton Exchange where Maybrick worked, so it's a more logical place for Maybrick to "take refreshment" rather than to trek over to the School Lane area.

Hi Chris,

How is it a more logical place for Maybrick to "take refreshment" if it wasn't called the Poste House until long after his death?

Sorry, Chris, I knew what you meant. But the real JM would have had to 'trek over' to the School Lane area at the end of the working day anyway, to take the train back to Aigburth from Central Station. So what could be more logical than to imagine 'Sir Jim' having a swift one after work, if he reached the old posthouse before his train was due? The Post Office Tavern, as it was called by 1888, was not only situated close to Central Station, but also to the real JM's childhood home, and to Whitechapel, where Florie had supposedly arranged to meet her lover. After all, that was uppermost in the mind of 'Sir Jim' when he was taking his refreshment.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris,

How is it a more logical place for Maybrick to "take refreshment" if it wasn't called the Poste House until long after his death?

Sorry, Chris, I knew what you meant. But the real JM would have had to 'trek over' to the School Lane area at the end of the working day anyway, to take the train back to Aigburth from Central Station. So what could be more logical than to imagine 'Sir Jim' having a swift one after work, if he reached the old posthouse before his train was due? The Post Office Tavern, as it was called by 1888, was not only situated close to Central Station, but also to the real JM's childhood home, and to Whitechapel, where Florie had supposedly arranged to meet her lover. After all, that was uppermost in the mind of 'Sir Jim' when he was taking his refreshment.

Love,

Caz
X

The early passage in the Diary doesn't indicate he's having the "bevvie" in the pub, which again he expressly says was "the Poste House," just before he hops on the train to Aigburth. It's the same sentence in which he says "it was there I finally decided London it shall be" to take his revenge on his unfaithful wife. And that's where the ridiculousness of the Diary storyline exists. The hoaxer of the Diary has to get Maybrick to London to make him Jack the Ripper, despite the fact that as a world class seaport Liverpool was crammed with prostitutes, so the journey wasn't needed. The scenario is entirely contrived.

Cheers

Chris

[J.W. Sage]

The early passage in the Diary doesn't indicate he's having the "bevvie" in the pub, which again he expressly says was "the Poste House," just before he hops on the train to Aigburth. It's the same sentence in which he says "it was there I finally decided London it shall be" to take his revenge on his unfaithful wife. And that's where the ridiculousness of the Diary storyline exists. The hoaxer of the Diary has to get Maybrick to London to make him Jack the Ripper, despite the fact that as a world class seaport Liverpool was crammed with prostitutes, so the journey wasn't needed. The scenario is entirely contrived.

Cheers

Chris

Hi Chris,

I find it fascinating that so many people see it as 'contrived' to have to try and 'fit going to London' in the 'hoax'. If this was a hoax it was with absolute remarkable luck they found a subject who did have to travel to London frequently. Not only London but the City of London - the doorstep of Whitechapel. Not only that, a man who probably spent a decade of his life with a woman from the edge of Whitechapel. Extraordinary shoehorning of luck into a 'hoax' one would argue. James Maybrick can be connected to a work address at 46 Lime Street near Aldgate in 1866, which is 8 years after he started working in the city of London. Coincidentally two minutes from the murder scene of Catherine Eddowes. The man knew that part of London and was comfortable. Whitechapel, Liverpool = Whitechapel, London plays to his narcissistic belief he is a wordsmith. Also, why would he commit the murders on his own doorstep and risk suspicion?

He believed he was clever and was outwitting all. It fits the psychological profile of a malignant narcissistic serial killer.

Regards,

Ero

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris,

I find it fascinating that so many people see it as 'contrived' to have to try and 'fit going to London' in the 'hoax'. If this was a hoax it was with absolute remarkable luck they found a subject who did have to travel to London frequently. Not only London but the City of London - the doorstep of Whitechapel. Not only that, a man who probably spent a decade of his life with a woman from the edge of Whitechapel. Extraordinary shoehorning of luck into a 'hoax' one would argue. James Maybrick can be connected to a work address at 46 Lime Street near Aldgate in 1866, which is 8 years after he started working in the city of London. Coincidentally two minutes from the murder scene of Catherine Eddowes. The man knew that part of London and was comfortable. Whitechapel, Liverpool = Whitechapel, London plays to his narcissistic belief he is a wordsmith. Also, why would he commit the murders on his own doorstep and risk suspicion?

He believed he was clever and was outwitting all. It fits the psychological profile of a malignant narcissistic serial killer.

Regards,

Ero

You don't think that a better candidate for the Ripper might be someone who already lives in the neighborhood and not an occasional visitor from a city 200 miles away? Don't forget we're talking about a murderer who got away time and time and again. A man who may or may not have been seen by any known witness. That might signify local knowledge that someone like James Maybrick probably didn't possess.

Chris

[J.W. Sage]

You don't think that a better candidate for the Ripper might be someone who already lives in the neighborhood and not an occasional visitor from a city 200 miles away? Don't forget we're talking about a murderer who got away time and time and again. A man who may or may not have been seen by any known witness. That might signify local knowledge that someone like James Maybrick probably didn't possess.

Chris

Actually, I think we would be very limited in our scope if we believe that to be so. I know often geographical profilers like to use the Ripper murders as a good case study for 'local killers' but there actually is very little evidence of that. Just how deep knowledge of the streets does one need? I have lived in Dublin for 13 years now. I grew up in London. I know the city far better than my wife who grew up here and most of her family. James lived in that area (or close proximity) for possibly the best part of a decade.

It is clear Whitechapel was JtR's preference and that could be for many reasons, but to simply assume that an anchor zone for a serial killer cannot be someone travelling in and out of the area would be dismissive based on very little fact. Ted Bundy created multiple anchor zones as he travelled. There are other examples of "commuter" killers basing their anchor zones outside where they live. Some also base it near where they work.

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually, I think we would be very limited in our scope if we believe that to be so. I know often geographical profilers like to use the Ripper murders as a good case study for 'local killers' but there actually is very little evidence of that. Just how deep knowledge of the streets does one need? I have lived in Dublin for 13 years now. I grew up in London. I know the city far better than my wife who grew up here and most of her family. James lived in that area (or close proximity) for possibly the best part of a decade.

It is clear Whitechapel was JtR's preference and that could be for many reasons, but to simply assume that an anchor zone for a serial killer cannot be someone travelling in and out of the area would be dismissive based on very little fact. Ted Bundy created multiple anchor zones as he travelled. There are other examples of "commuter" killers basing their anchor zones outside where they live. Some also base it near where they work.

I totally agree, why researchers are so fixated in their belief that the killer was local amazes me. The dates of the killing are suggestive of somone coming into Whitechapel. killing and then leaving.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris G.]

Actually, I think we would be very limited in our scope if we believe that to be so. I know often geographical profilers like to use the Ripper murders as a good case study for 'local killers' but there actually is very little evidence of that. Just how deep knowledge of the streets does one need? I have lived in Dublin for 13 years now. I grew up in London. I know the city far better than my wife who grew up here and most of her family. James lived in that area (or close proximity) for possibly the best part of a decade.

It is clear Whitechapel was JtR's preference and that could be for many reasons, but to simply assume that an anchor zone for a serial killer cannot be someone travelling in and out of the area would be dismissive based on very little fact. Ted Bundy created multiple anchor zones as he travelled. There are other examples of "commuter" killers basing their anchor zones outside where they live. Some also base it near where they work.

The trouble is that there isn't a scintilla of evidence to suggest that James Maybrick was a serial killer. Yes it's known that he was abusive to his wife but a lot of husbands are, and abusive husband doesn't make a serial killer. The Diarist makes a weak attempt to suggest that Maybrick committed a murder in Manchester but there's no evidence of it historically. No, the bottom line is that someone, probably a Liverpudlian, had the bright idea to make James Maybrick the Ripper because he died at the right time to have been the killer in the East End of London.

J. W. Sage, before you go off saying Maybrick was the Ripper and the Diary is authentic, you should read the recent take down of the Diary by Maybrick expert Chris Jones, published in the Whitechapel Journal. Chris provides a blow-by-blow analysis of the elements of the Diary to compare them with what was published in late 20th century books on the Ripper case and on the Maybrick case. He demonstrates that a modern-day forger could have obtained all the information needed to fabricate the Diary and that the work contains nothing new, no revelations that might prove it to be authentic. In fact, the person behind the Diary missed family details that the real Maybrick should have known, e.g., that his son James Chandler Maybrick was nicknamed not just "Bobo" but "Sonny" as Florence Aunspaugh's correspondence reveals, and that James Maybrick's younger brother Thomas went by the name of "Tom" which the writer of the Diary appears not to know. More recently, in the June 2021 issue of the Whitechapel Journal, similarly shows that Shirley Harrison's attempt to pin the 1884-1885 Austin, Texas, servant girl axe murders on Maybrick doesn't work timewise either.

Best regards

Chris

[J.W. Sage]

The trouble is that there isn't a scintilla of evidence to suggest that James Maybrick was a serial killer. Yes it's known that he was abusive to his wife but a lot of husbands are, and abusive husband doesn't make a serial killer. The Diarist makes a weak attempt to suggest that Maybrick committed a murder in Manchester but there's no evidence of it historically. No, the bottom line is that someone, probably a Liverpudlian, had the bright idea to make James Maybrick the Ripper because he died at the right time to have been the killer in the East End of London.

J. W. Sage, before you go off saying Maybrick was the Ripper and the Diary is authentic, you should read the recent take down of the Diary by Maybrick expert Chris Jones, published in the Whitechapel Journal. Chris provides a blow-by-blow analysis of the elements of the Diary to compare them with what was published in late 20th century books on the Ripper case and on the Maybrick case. He demonstrates that a modern-day forger could have obtained all the information needed to fabricate the Diary and that the work contains nothing new, no revelations that might prove it to be authentic. In fact, the person behind the Diary missed family details that the real Maybrick should have known, e.g., that his son James Chandler Maybrick was nicknamed not just "Bobo" but "Sonny" as Florence Aunspaugh's correspondence reveals, and that James Maybrick's younger brother Thomas went by the name of "Tom" which the writer of the Diary appears not to know. More recently, in the June 2021 issue of the Whitechapel Journal, similarly shows that Shirley Harrison's attempt to pin the 1884-1885 Austin, Texas, servant girl axe murders on Maybrick doesn't work timewise either.

Best regards

Chris

Thanks for the considered reply.

There is no evidence that Kosminski was a serial killer. There is no evidence Lechmere was a serial killer. There is no evidence Druitt was a serial killer. Yet, here we are. Maybrick was a drug addict, adulterer and had a history of violence against his wife. He also had strong connections to that part of London.

One cannot be expected to place all relevant details that make researchers comfortable into a document in the belief maybe one day someone can find the thing that ultimately identifies him. Rarely ever do things like that come in a nice neat bow.

I have said on the other forum that I am open to the idea that the scrapbook could be a hoax but I do not see the killer blows others seemingly do with regards to its authenticity. It is not conclusively proven. Neither is its legitimacy. So it warrants a continued discussion.

I stay in the hunt for Maybrick primarily because of the watch. Robbie Johnson was no expert in the technical craft of forging embedded brass particles into corroded gold. Those scratches are from 1974 at the absolute latest and nothing has been inconsistent with them not being from 1888.

People forget there are two items, not one. The watch always seems to be disregarded simply because of the ironic quirk of 'timing'.

Regards,

Ero

[Caroline Brown]

Hi All,

The case of Colin Ireland, active from March to June 1993, between the Maybrick diary's emergence and publication, very much demonstrates that the argument for Maybrick being a terrible choice for Jack for geographical reasons fell down before it was ever made.

The trains from Liverpool to London ran just as efficiently in the 1880s, and perhaps more so, than from Southend-on-Sea to London in the 1990s. Maybrick at least had legitimate reasons for going to London; not so much Ireland, who picked up all his victims from the same pub and seems to have had no other purpose for his travelling. The diary author clearly saw no problem with portraying Maybrick as a Colin Ireland type, before Colin Ireland had even begun killing, and despite Chris George's instincts that it would have been safer and far more credible to opt for a London based Jack.

One might ask, in Chris's shoes, why any hoaxer would make it so hard on themselves by picking someone who had lived so far from the crimes. But my answer would be that this one didn't give two hoots about impressing Chris George, and would have been highly gratified to see a real live example, Colin Ireland, proving the point, just a year after the diary first came to light.

Love,

Caz
X