Brierley

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Hi Paul

(off topic a bit)

Why do you think that the diary commences with his plan to commit the Ripper murders?

Why are there no entries other than those relating to his crime spree?

I don't think there is any evidence that Maybrick ever wrote anything similar such as a "normal" diary

It just seems strange to me that a person not known (as far as I know) as a keeper of a diary, would commence writing with a plan that wasn't apparently fully formed in his mind -indeed, in the diary he initially seems unsure about his ability to carry out such a plan

..Yet the diary gives us the complete insight into the Ripper from when he first conceived the idea until the last - and not much more

It just seems a bit convenient

[Paul Butler]

Something that I do find impressive about this creation is that not only does Sir Jim get all his little facts right, and I mean that sincerely folks, he gets them in the right order and in the right place.

If this was a diary in the true sense of the word, with dated entries, it would have been a lot easier to make sure you hadn't commited any bloopers and maybe put some things the wrong way around.

Sir Jim didn't like to make things too easy for himself obviously.

regards.

Paul

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Much appreciated Paul

[Paul Butler]

Hi Nemo.

The source for a lot of it is the papers in the Christie collecton that Feldman got his hands on.

Feldman from page 110 on covers it quite well, and quotes the important bits verbatim.

Regards.

Paul

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Thanks again Paul

Would you be so kind to point me to a source that mentions the discovery of the love letters please

Thanks

Nemo

[Paul Butler]

Hi Nemo.

Sadly not, and they never made it to court as evidence either. Michael saw to it that Edwin's letters disappeared, and Williams presumably did the same.

Edwin was out of the country during most of 1888 and early 1889, (the diary acknowledges this too), so the most likely candidate for whoremaster must be Williams or another unknown I suppose.

regards.

Paul

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Isn't Edwin unlikely to be the "whoremaster" as in the diary Maybrick refers to him affectionately? - "My dear brother Edwin" etc?

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Hi Paul - thanks very much for that

Are copies/transcripts/dates of the love letters available?

Are they from 1888?

[Paul Butler]

Hi Nemo

To me, this is another diarist mistake. It works for the Ripper story and for the Diary to have Florence involved with Brierley in 1888. It doesn't work for the Diary narrative if it's acknowledged that Florence only got together with Brierley in 1889.

All the best

Chris

Hi Chris and all.

I thought this had been done to death in the past.

Sir Jim certainly would have been a fool to introduce Brierly as the whoremaster in 1888, so its just as well he doesn't.

After Florrie's arrest, love letters from Edwin Maybrick and a man called Williams as well as Alf Brierly were found by the police.

To quote Florence Aunspaugh, who stayed at Battlecrease as a child.....

"......her amorous feelings for both Edwin Maybrick and Williams was waning, but was very much increasing for him,(Brierly)"

She had at least two lovers before Brierly and the diary gets it spot on.

Case closed as they say.

Regards to all.

Paul

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Thanks Chris!

I'll trawl through that thread

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

...and the lead up to an affair is often apparent to the cuckold

Brierley said he was a friend to Florence during 1888 but did not become intimately involved until 1889 - the 1888 part of the relationship may not have seemed so innocent to the husband

(I'm answering my own question here - lol)

Is there a massive thread somewhere dedicated to this?

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris

I think that too - however, I think that the diary does not mention Brierley by name - and could possibly be alluding (erroneously in my opinion) to that John fellow who was a childhood friend of Florence

Brierley would be the second man mentioned in late 1888

Which is why I would like to see the arguments for/against the "whoremaster" being Brierley if possible please

Hello Nemo

I have tried to find what you need but such discussions may have been lost in the Casebook forums crash. There's a current discussion of Brierley and related issues at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...rley#post87386

Chris

[Howard Brown]

Dear C.G.

It might well be a diarist mistake, I would think/agree you are correct C.G.......but it could...as an outside chance, be an intentional mistake in order to demonstrate that there is one new "revelation" within the 63 pages that many in the community feels is lacking throughout the reading of the thing.

Several have commented on the absence of anything new and illuminating in the Diary...and this could be it...albeit a long shot....pointing towards "Maybrick as the author" because of something "new"....this reference to 1888 in reference to Brierley and Florrie playing coochie-coo before the generally assumed date of 1889.

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Hi Chris

I think that too - however, I think that the diary does not mention Brierley by name - and could possibly be alluding (erroneously in my opinion) to that John fellow who was a childhood friend of Florence

Brierley would be the second man mentioned in late 1888

Which is why I would like to see the arguments for/against the "whoremaster" being Brierley if possible please

[Chris G.]

Hi Nemo

To me, this is another diarist mistake. It works for the Ripper story and for the Diary to have Florence involved with Brierley in 1888. It doesn't work for the Diary narrative if it's acknowledged that Florence only got together with Brierley in 1889.

All the best

Chris