Jones and Dolgin, The Maybrick Murder and the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The End Game

[Chris Phillips]

The Liverpool Echo reports the author's conclusions, in the book to be published on 11 September*, about both the Diary and the death of James Maybrick:
In his latest book, he bucks the trend of maintaining an open interpretation of the evidence - presenting two firm conclusions.
One: James Maybrick was completely innocent.
Two: Florence was, too.
... "The diary is a clever, but clear, forgery.
... "There isn't any credible evidence for the diary being real, but some people want to believe it," Christopher said.

There are some more details in the article:
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...cused-24832493

(* Edit: 12 September according to the Mango Books website.)

[Steve Blomer]

I was fortunate enough to be at a meeting in early 2020, when Chris spoke about his upcoming work.
Based on what he said, I had little doubt that this work would convince the vast majority that the diary is fake.

[Jay Hartley]

Look forward to seeing what documented evidence Chris has that directly conflicts with the worksheet from Portus & Rhodes that day of 9th March 1992. Hope it’s more than just Paul Dodd’s own recollections and something more tangible.

Who knows what things might influence one’s memories?

[R. J. Palmer]

I fully agree that Florence Maybrick was wrongly convicted on the evidence, but I personally hesitate before insisting that she was innocent. She may have been.

Many years ago, a young woman told me that if she was to murder someone, she would use the victim's own vice to do it--because everyone would just look for the obvious explanation.

If her intended victim was a reckless driver, she would fiddle with the brake cables. If he was a junky, she would give him an overdose. If he was a womanizer, she would shoot him in a motel and make it look like a jealous husband had tracked him down. If he was a sneakthief, she would electrocute him and dump his body inside the appropriate high voltage compound with a pair of wire cutters.

She had clearly thought the matter through, and I wondered about her after that.

[Howard Brown]

She lives in Eagleville, Pa, RJ....small world,

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

He says Florence is innocent but the title is the Maybrick Murder. Is he going with Michael as the murderer? Now what would be the motive in that case?

Many years ago, a young woman told me that if she was to murder someone, she would use the victim's own vice to do it--because everyone would just look for the obvious explanation.

P.S. R.J., can we use that for the Michael Did It theory?

[Chris Phillips]

He says Florence is innocent but the title is the Maybrick Murder. Is he going with Michael as the murderer? Now what would be the motive in that case?

From what the Liverpool Echo article says, he believes Maybrick died of a self-administered strychnine overdose. Given that, it does seem a bit strange to have the word "murder" in the title of the book.

[Scott Nelson]

Look forward to seeing what documented evidence Chris has that directly conflicts with the worksheet from Portus & Rhodes that day of 9th March 1992. Hope it’s more than just Paul Dodd’s own recollections and something more tangible.

What if one of the P&R contractors worked with another company years before March 1992 and one of them found the book, say behind a cupboard or someplace else, and told Eddie Lyons about it on that March 1992 day?

[Jay Hartley]

What if one of the P&R contractors worked with another company years before March 1992 and one of them found the book, say behind a cupboard or someplace else, and told Eddie Lyons about it on that March 1992 day?

Hi Scott. It is indeed possible. The fact we have a document dated 9th March 1992 where floorboards are mentioned, and by pure coincidence apparently, happens to be the exact same day Mike Barrett calls Doreen Montgomery, is just too incredible to ignore.

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

“There isn't any credible evidence for the diary being real, but some people want to believe it," Christopher said.

I don’t understand this perspective. Why would someone “want” to believe it?

[Chris Phillips]

“There isn't any credible evidence for the diary being real, but some people want to believe it," Christopher said.

I don’t understand this perspective. Why would someone “want” to believe it?

Surely people wanting to believe things is common enough in Ripperology?

[Jay Hartley]

Surely people wanting to believe things is common enough in Ripperology?

Belief suggests faith. This is not a case of blind faith. There is no clear evidence of who created it, for what purpose and how it came to be in Mike Barrett's hands.

Some people want to believe it is a Mike / Anne Barrett hoax, but the evidence does not actually support that. Yes, there are challenges with the diary, but until we know conclusively who wrote it and why it came to be, we all have an obligation to discover the truth.

It's easy to dismiss something you don't understand.

Belief goes both ways.

[Jay Hartley]

As for Florence being innocent, I believe there might be some merit in RJ's suggestion. I agree her trial was a whitewash and the evidence presented did not support the assumption James died from arsenic poisoning. Florence's experts Dr Tidy and Dr McNamara, actually made very solid cases for this. However, some other poisonous irritant could have exacerbated the gastro-entiritis that ultimately killed him. Possibly strychnine. My guess is laudanum.

[Tom Mitchell]

As for Florence being innocent, I believe there might be some merit in RJ's suggestion. I agree her trial was a whitewash and the evidence presented did not support the assumption James died from arsenic poisoning. Florence's experts Dr Tidy and Dr McNamara, actually made very solid cases for this. However, some other poisonous irritant could have exacerbated the gastro-entiritis that ultimately killed him. Possibly strychnine. My guess is laudanum.

If Chris is relying on a double-dose of strychnine to see off James Maybrick then I suggest he gets in the queue. From the scrapbook itself, written long before Chris stumbled upon this possibility:

"The pain is unbearable. My dear Bunny knows all. I do not know if she has the strength to kill me. I pray to God she finds it. It would be simple, she knows of my medicine, and for an extra dose or two, it would be all over".

I suggest that Mark is quite right when he asks why anyone would want to believe in the Maybrick scrapbook. It's an excellent question. Who wanted to believe in the Hitler diaries sufficiently to keep arguing for authenticity once they were properly debunked? If anyone did, it could surely not be because of want but rather because of ignorance of the facts of the debunking. And here's the rub, of course, for those who think I am typing with unrecognised irony, the debunking has to be proper, not simply assumed. Remember, everyone, the days when Michael Maybrick never wrote lyrics to his songs? Clearly, Livia Trivia wanted that to be wrong because she researched it and proved it to be so. Or did she just not believe that it had been proven to be a truism and so set out to prove it wasn't? Was her wanting to believe really a simpler need for the truth of the matter? Remember when 'mole bonnet' [sic] seemed to be just a made-up expression until Mr. Barnett wanted to know the truth and eventually uncovered it? The scrapbook has proven to be rather remarkably resilient to criticism over the years and frequently proven itself to be no sort of sorcery when the listless, mindless rabble all around are shouting "A witch! We've got a witch! Burn her!".

The original question - why would anyone want to believe in the scrapbook - is borne out of the premise that the vast majority, bearing a shared view, must necessarily be correct. "And what else floats on water?" and what have you. It's a terrible fallacy which has cost reputations, livelihoods, and even lies over the years. Martin Fido himself admitted that he had to protect his academic credentials when his career was still in bloom and therefore he had to be seen on the right side of public opinion regarding the scrapbook. It's understandable but it's also potentially very dangerous indeed.

So, this scrapbook may well look like a duck. Some may say it even quacks like a duck. But until we properly show that it weighs like a duck, it hasn't been shown to be so and therefore you do not have the permission of the congregated stupid to drown it or burn it.

Keep your carrots, parsnips, or whatever in your carrot-parsnip-whatever bags, lads and lasses. No argument was ever proven ad populum however compelling it must be on days when you just want to burn a witch. I think history do tell this to be true ...

Regards,

Tom

[Tom Mitchell]

I was fortunate enough to be at a meeting in early 2020, when Chris spoke about his upcoming work.
Based on what he said, I had little doubt that this work would convince the vast majority that the diary is fake.

And I rest my case ...

Burn her!!!!