Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New : Michael Maybrick As The Diarist

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    If MM had some involvement in the production of the diary, then I suggest that it would have been composed "offline", so to speak, before being deposited under the floor at Battlecrease. And, its NOT being a genuine diary, it was likely written more or less in one sitting, obviating the need to repeatedly lift/replace the boards every time a new entry was added.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    That is interesting. There are some old construction techniques that held things together because things fit without benefit of nails. In any older construction I know of in my area, everything was nailed down hard.

    There are a number of references in various writings about hiding things under floorboards. Perhaps this is a new area to learn about for general interest. Who knows what was done before nails were readily available?

    I should clarify that the floorboard under my bed had been nailed down but I prised it up. Naughty lad that I am. The photo album with the naughty pics had a red morocco cover to it with embossed gold lettering that said "The Royal Album." I didn't know about Prince Eddy back then. If I still had it now it might be worth a fortune.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
    As you may have seen me say before I lived on Aigburth Hall Avenue in Liverpool up the street from where the Maybricks once lived. Now, when I was there in the Sixties, I kept an old photo album under the floorboards below my bed. True bill. The floorboard was loose. It wasn't nailed down. The photo album contained risqué photographs dating back to the Victorian era.
    That is interesting. There are some old construction techniques that held things together because things fit without benefit of nails. In any older construction I know of in my area, everything was nailed down hard.

    There are a number of references in various writings about hiding things under floorboards. Perhaps this is a new area to learn about for general interest. Who knows what was done before nails were readily available?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post

    Unless under the floorboards was once easily accessible, then putting the diary there and nailing it in would guarantee the diary would be more of a time capsule.

    Just some thoughts.
    As you may have seen me say before I lived on Aigburth Hall Avenue in Liverpool up the street from where the Maybricks once lived. Now, when I was there in the Sixties, I kept an old photo album under the floorboards below my bed. True bill. The floorboard was loose. It wasn't nailed down. The photo album contained risqué photographs dating back to the Victorian era.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    A general thought would be, why would a person hide a diary under floorboards? Specific to this thread, why would MM hide a diary in that way?

    Some other thoughts: Was the diary completed, then secreted? Was there ever a loose floorboard so the writer could write a bit, hide his work, take it out to add, etc? (Like teenage girls have private diaries and hide them, etc. At least in my day teenage girls did that. Now I think they put all intimate feelings on social media in a quest for instant fame or something.)

    Writings have been hidden due to political pressure, such as Nazi occupation or in the middle ages when the Bible was being translated outside accepted circles. Surely these considerations would not apply to Victorian England except that the diary claims to record JtR's crimes. Who would the writer fear? The servants? Family members?

    Unless under the floorboards was once easily accessible, then putting the diary there and nailing it in would guarantee the diary would be more of a time capsule.

    Just some thoughts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Hi Lars


    Michael's hand in 1911 was in his later years, and it's a steady hand. He has a couple of peculiarities : he writes his surname and that of his wife as 'May brick,' and he puts a horizontal line above the capital 'W' in 'I of W' and 'Wife.'

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by SirRobertAnderson View Post
    But the Diarist doesn't use a uniform hand throughout. There are sections which do look like a normal person's handwriting, and there are parts where it is anything but uniform.
    Indeed, the diarist often can't even write in a straight line, which isn't something that could be said of Michael Maybrick's writing.
    And as Debs points out there are places where it even bears similarity to Michael's.
    I can't see the remotest similarity, I'm afraid.

    If MM did have a hand in writing the diary, it doesn't look like it was the hand that held the pen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    If Michael wrote the document in his later years it might account for a messy hand.

    There was a poster on here years ago who wote a book on MM as ripper i think. I havent read it.

    Did Robinson just rehash his work or develop it more?

    I just cannot get my head round MM writing it- mostly because there is no logical reason for him to have done so and then hide it. As opposed to just chucking it on the ever presentt victorian fire had he not wanted it to come to light.

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • SirRobertAnderson
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    The formation of the letters aside, Michael Maybrick's writing actually looks like that of an adult. The diary's writing, by contrast, could easily be that of a teenager. I'm not saying that a kid wrote the diary; it's just an informal way of categorising the two styles.
    But the Diarist doesn't use a uniform hand throughout. There are sections which do look like a normal person's handwriting, and there are parts where it is anything but uniform. And as Debs points out there are places where it even bears similarity to Michael's.

    The variations quite clear in Robert Smith's facsimile. Sometimes it is even demonstrated within a single sentence.

    Someone trying to sell us a story would have been more consistent IMHO. Why use several scripts, especially one that appears deranged?

    The Diary on the other hand was hidden and not trying to sell anyone a story in 1889. Hence little attention to the niceties. But what is not disguised is the author's rage; that still comes through loud and clear in 2017.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks Gareth...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Cheers, guys.

    Leave a comment:


  • SirRobertAnderson
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Gareth:

    As you can see, I undeleted it....it is relevant to the discussion.

    I simply want people to contribute rather than crack jokes on this thread.
    We're not trying to form a pro-Maybrick club here....just trying to avoid repetitive posts on issues that have been hashed out for ages. No one needs to think MM was the Diarist to discuss the issue.

    I'm not trying to give myself ridling room but when I said MM was the Diarist, I am certainly open to idea that his wife may have helped him, he might have been mentally ill or sick OR the Diarist merely shares MM's points of view on the Maybrick case. I am reluctant to cross the Steels off the list of potential scribes. Let's not forget Lady Monkswell was a famous diarist in her own right.

    It is impossible however to argue that Michael doesn't come off well in the Diary. He's the good guy in all this, followed by Edwin. Everyone else gets dragged through the mud. That alone raises an eyebrow.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Gareth:

    As you can see, I undeleted it....it is relevant to the discussion.

    I simply want people to contribute rather than crack jokes on this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    If Michael was the author, then he was brilliant at disguising his handwriting, which is possible I suppose. In all sincerity, I see no resemblance between the two.

    Comparison.jpg

    The formation of the letters aside, Michael Maybrick's writing actually looks like that of an adult. The diary's writing, by contrast, could easily be that of a teenager. I'm not saying that a kid wrote the diary; it's just an informal way of categorising the two styles.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    If members are uninterested in the theme of thread or simply want to 'state their case' by merely applying dismissive remarks unlike the post Sam Flynn posts after this one..refrain from doing so.

    This thread is intended for people who give the possibility of Michael Maybrick being the author of the Diary from this point on. No exceptions.

    One of the major 'events' or mysteries in the 130 year history of the Case has been the appearance of the Diary. It would be quite an achievement if the authorship could be ascertained.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X