Brierley

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

Going by the 81 Census, there were plenty of cotton merchants living downtown but most were born elsewhere. Brierley was still in the city amongst the foreign-born cotton merchants but he was still young and on his way up, I guess.

There were maybe a dozen foreign-born. Out of about 13 born in Liverpool, they are equally distributed in the city (Mount Pleasant), Toxteth Park, West Derby, and outside of Liverpool, with one in Everton.

So I guess someone could make allowances again for good guesswork and say he doesn't actually have to live very near the concert halls for Florie to take the carriage to Brierley's house. It just so happened he did.

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

Brierley's office was located at Old Hall Street (Maybrick A-Z).

So 60 Huskisson St appears to be Brierley's home.

Huskisson was the address on the famous letter Florie was sending to him and which was intercepted by Nurse Yapp. I found the address mentioned in a newspaper article of the time (Times of London May 29, 1889).

But where does it show up in any modern source, or where is there any other indication that Brierley lived in the city near the concert halls?

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

Tonight I will celebrate by wining and dining George [Davidson?]. I am in a good mood, believe I will allow the whore the pleasure of her whore master, will remark an evening in the city will do her good, will suggest a concert. I have no doubt the carriage will take the bitch straight to him.

Brierley's address here is given as 60 Huskisson St. Or was this his office? LIVERPOOL MURDERS: The Maybrick Case

That's right in the city. I'm not sure how the author would have sourced that and got it right or just guessed. I don't think now there's any question the author had Brierley in mind.

That was a rather limp and irrelevant riposte, Sam.

I thought it as apposite as it was true, Caz.

Long day?

Not quite - just a really bad 'net connection. It's driving me nuts (not that they need driving )

[Caroline Brown]

That was a rather limp and irrelevant riposte, Sam. Long day?

Love,

Caz
X

With respect, it depends very much on which 'experts' one favours and on what basis.

Certainly, Caz... but there are arguably many more clued-up people interested in all things Ripper now than there were back then - yet we still see authors pushing flawed or frankly loony theories today.

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Many thanks to Stewart for the informative posts in his new "Diary Miscellanea" thread

Very interesting about the love letters

It does put Florence in a bad light really

So - I will take it that Williams the "London lawyer" was most likely the whoremaster in the diary - or else an otherwise unknown person

Brierley would possibly be the second man mentioned aroung December I think

[Caroline Brown]

3. "Mass-Ripperology" has been a phenomenon of only the past decade or so, with the advent of the Internet, magazines and online repositories of vast amounts of records and data beyond the reach of previous researchers. This was not the case when the Diary came to light, so it was still comparatively easy to try to pull a fast one on the public, if not the experts.

Hi Sam,

With respect, it depends very much on which 'experts' one favours and on what basis.

One could argue that a hoaxer working shortly before the diary came to light might not have anticipated quite the phenomenon you describe here, with its vast amounts of data becoming available to wade through, but they would still have been taking a chance, considering how many fatal errors in the diary could have 'come to light' at any moment between April 1992 and today as a result.

All the expert's horses and all the expert's men (no matter which expert is your own personal king), plus all the vast armies of newly available records since the diary and watch emerged, have been unable to knock a single fatal hole in Humpty The Late Eighties Hoaxer's wall.

And still some people think Barrett could have sat on a wall he made himself with faulty bricks and mortar.

My arse he did.

Love,

Caz
X

Afternoon, Paul.

my best guess that the diary could be something akin to McCormicks supposed invention of Eight little whores.

Isn't that also the book in which the idea of "Jack the Rhymester" got its first major public airing?

He got away with it for years as nobody bothered or saw reason to check it until comparatively recently.

The same is largely true of Knight's 1976 conspiracy theory, or indeed the more sober offerings of Martin Fido and Melvin Harris, both published shortly before the discovery of the Diary. It's only within the past five to ten years that these, and later contributions from Euan Macpherson and William Beadle (for example), have come under serious widespread scrutiny. It still seems to have been somewhat of an "open season" when the Diary came out, as far as I can tell.

[Paul Butler]

Afternoon Sam F.

Ripperana has had its peaks and troughs of poularity right through from 1888 to the present day of course. Peaks seemingly occurring around significant dates. Matters and McCormick's books would be good examples of none too accurate and partly invented productions that were probably accepted at face value when first written, and I guesss their dates of publication were both tied to ripper anniversaries. Of course ripper "fiction as fact" finally reached its zenith in the Royal conspiracy tales, but it has always been there from the start.

Looking at the whole sorry diary saga as a whole, I don't accept the 1980s hoax idea at all, it just doesn't add up or make any sense to me as I'm sure you are aware by now, and its my best guess that the diary could be something akin to McCormicks supposed invention of Eight little whores. He got away with it for years as nobody bothered or saw reason to check it until comparatively recently.

Had a book been written about the Maybrick diary in the 50s, assuming it existed then as I'm inclined to do, do you honestly not think that it would have been widely accepted at face value? I sincerely believe it would have been as its a damned good tale, and a lot of it fits in so well.

Any significant date might have set the seed in the diary author's mind, Florrie's release from prison in 1904 for one.

I'm inclined to believe that Rendell's initial assessment of the diary's date of conception being around 1921, plus or minus, might not have been that far out.

Hopefully I shan't have to wait another 15 years before I find out how close I am.

regards.

Paul

I'm inclined to think that it was created at a time when whoever did it never expected it to come under the microscopic scrutiny it has, and that for me would be the early 20th century when it was possible to peddle JTR fiction as fact and get away with it. We have plenty of examples to chose from.

Interesting points, Paul, although:

1. Isn't it the case that "Ripperana" (as a popular genre) only really started to take off from the 1960s onwards, reaching its first popular zenith with Knight's book of 1976? Before then, I really don't see that there would have been much of a market for a book such as the Diary, so one struggles to find a motive for writing it.

2. Whereas, today, there might be scores of people (worldwide) equipped to tear apart any dodgy thesis or book, only a handful of genuine Ripper scholars (mainly British) seem to have been around when the Diary first came to light. Despite the fact that many of those Ripper scholars voiced their scepticism of the Diary at the time, it was still nonetheless published.

3. "Mass-Ripperology" has been a phenomenon of only the past decade or so, with the advent of the Internet, magazines and online repositories of vast amounts of records and data beyond the reach of previous researchers. This was not the case when the Diary came to light, so it was still comparatively easy to try to pull a fast one on the public, if not the experts.

4. In spite of modern "mass-Ripperology", we still see examples of JTR-fiction being passed off as fact. Perhaps microscopic scrutiny seems not to be much of a deterrent to the most determined, or deluded, authors after all.

[Paul Butler]

Morning Nemo.

Thanks for posting the link to that Stead article. I had read it years ago and forgotten all about it.

The mysterious man Henry Wilson is a bit of a puzzle as he isn't mentioned in any account of the Maybrick saga that I have ever seen. What was he doing in Battlecrease at that time? Interestingly there was a Nurse Wilson who attended to James in his dying days, but its a common enough name and probably there's no connection.

I've never really understood the idea that the diary may have been created to somehow take the blame away from Florrie. I just don't see how anyone could imagine that it would help her cause in any way. To my mind it would have just made matters a whole lot worse.

I'm inclined to think that it was created at a time when whoever did it never expected it to come under the microscopic scrutiny it has, and that for me would be the early 20th century when it was possible to peddle JTR fiction as fact and get away with it. We have plenty of examples to chose from.

My guess would be that there might have been a book planned, perhaps the prospective author had genuine reasons to name Maybrick but had no evidence,and thought he'd create a bit himself to back it up if needed.

regards.

Paul

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

I just read some similar points by Chris and Robert on the Diary and JtR letters thread...

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Hi Paul

Thanks for the eloquent reply

Perhaps the answer lies in the "American" campaign to get her freed from imprisonment during her life, or to exonerate her after her death

I came across this reference recently to a Henry Wilson who confessed to administering arsenic to Maybrick - or at least "leaving bottles lying about" that would incriminate Florence after James died

http://www.attackingthedevil.co.uk/reviews/maybrick.php

The claim is that he framed Florence with the help of a domestic servant

I expect there to be other similar "confessions" and the like trying to put Florence in a good light

Somebody contemperaneous to the case (Florence's) may have seen fit to produce the diary to match her statement that he did many wrong things but that she did not want his life and misdeeds publicised

However, if the diary was produced for such a reason, I suspect that it would have appeared after her death

If it was passed to someone who disagreed with it or thought it false, I would expect it to be destroyed, not hidden away

If it was submitted to someone sympathetic to Florence, why would it remain undiscovered for so long?

[Paul Butler]

Hi Nemo.

What a damned good set of questions.

I can only answer for myself of course, but it really does depend on whether you look at it from the perspective of the real James having written it, or whether you view it through the eyes of Sir Jim, the Liverpool hoax merchant.

I like your first point because of course the first 40 pages of the book have been removed, so it might or might not have originally commenced with his plan to commit the ripper murders. It all depends on whether those 40 pages contained details of Maybrick's life prior to his "Whitechapel period", or whether they contained a load of old 1914-18 photographs that had to be disposed of leaving no trace.

Clearly we are supposed to believe the former.

There are numerous entries not directly relating to his crime spree, and these have impressed some of the professionals that have looked at it. The references to Bunny and the children, Lowry etc. don't really have much to do with his killing spree. He comes across as a self obsessed hypochondriac with a huge inferiority complex, and in that I think whoever put it together was quite clever.

I think the intention of the diary is to serve as a sort of confession, or intended to read that way, so I don't personally have a problem with it concentrating primarily on his crime spree.

Whether the real James kept a journal we will probably never know, but I understand it was a fairly common practice at the time. The Victorian equivalent of a present day blog.

I would guess that the writing down of your thoughts in a journal like this would help to crystalise any plan in your head, and that is precisely the way Sir Jim's diary reads to me.

its true it does all seem a bit convenient, and it all gets wrapped up beautifully at the end.

My view is that whatever you think about it, it can still resist pretty much anything that gets thrown at it. It steadfastly refuses to be proved modern, and its a damned sight cleverer itself than most of the people that chose to criticise it on its content. Present company excepted.

Whatever it is, it ain't modern, and it certainly wasn't created by a Liverpool scally, either on kitchen table or word processor.

regards.

Paul