Untitled
Steven Fern, London, England.

I have been reading the responses to Melvin Harris's THE MAYBRICK HOAX; A GUIDE THROUGH THE LABYRINTH with mounting disbelief I am surprised that anyone who gains their knowledge only from books is able to claim to be some sort of expert thus enabled to criticise informed work on a subject which they obviously know little about. Although most of the points have been addressed by Mr Harris it would seem that not all are convinced. It seems only fair that Mr Harris should enjoy some support for his cause.

It is nice to see a strong interest in the subject in the USA, but this is rather spoilt by the writing of some amazing criticism which is not based on any original research whatsoever. What is written in books and personal opinion are not sufficient basis for critical comment if one wishes to be taken seriously.

I feel that I must emphasise a few home truths. The "diary" is almost universally regarded in this country as a hoax. Indeed, even Paul Begg has publicly stated that he has always thought that it was a forgery, qualifying this only by further stating that it MAY be an old forgery. The provenance of the "diary" is shaky in the extreme. As a result virtually the whole of Paul Feldman's book is devoted to TRYING to prove a provenance. After spending £150,000 he has singularly FAILED to prove a good provenance, and most certainly DOES NOT prove that James Maybrick was one and the same as 'Jack the Ripper.' It is difficult to go into greater depth on this without making comments which may offend, and I DO NOT wish to do this. Suffice to say I will stick to facts.

Nearly EVERY leading writer and expert on this case, including Martin Fido, Don Rumbelow, Phil Sugden and Nick Warren, agree with Melvin Harris's contention regarding the "diary." However they have not wished to become involved in the lengthy and tedious arguments about something in which they have little interest.

Since Melvin Harris's latest piece has been published several responses have appeared in reply. They raise some points which really should be addressed. Melvin Harris must tire at having to constantly jump up with rebuttals, but may, at times, think he is fighting a lonely battle. In the early days of the Feldman/Harris exchanges there was much preliminary jousting and rhetoric. This was followed by much bluster and threats of legal action (initially and mainly by Mr Feldman, and against more persons than Mr Harris, Mr Chisholm was another threatened with legal action). The release of Mr Feldman's book in England has not enjoyed very much publicity. After all 'The Sunday Times' dismissed the "diary" in a huge three-page spread as a hoax years ago. Therefore any debate or argument that can be generated on the "diary", or his book, will be seen as a glimmer of recognition for Mr Feldman. In that sense Mr Harris, and others who respond including myself{ are welcome foils for Mr Feldman.

The first responder to Mr Harris's piece states, "I just want to know whether the Diary and the Watch are genuine or not." Mr Feldman, take it from me, they are NOT. Again, it must be stated, EVERY recognised researcher and author on the subject, with the possible exception of Mr Colin Wilson, thinks them to be a forgery. If ANY OF THEM disagree with this statement then let them stand and be counted. I am sure that none of them will be rushing into print in support of the veracity of the "diary" and the watch. Even those with "diary" interests have stated they think it to be a forgery. Enough said? Perhaps not.

Gayle Blayney makes the valid observation that the 'Jack the Ripper' section in Gordon Honeycombe's 'Murders of the Black Museum 'is immediately followed by the story of the Maybrick case. A point, of course, that was noted years ago when the "diary" first emerged, and it is also true of many other 'crime-collection' books, or crime anthologies. The reason for this is obvious. The 'Ripper' murders were the big murder/crime story of 1888, and the Maybrick case was the big murder/crime story of 1889. Thus we see the two cases linked in public print as early as 1889. Chronologically one immediately follows the other, and they WILL ALWAYS appear side by side in such collections. Melvin Harris notes this linking in Nigel Morland's book 'This Friendless Lady' in 1957.

Naomi Wooter claims that Melvin Harris 'has not read the book (Mr Feldman's) but merely flicked the pages. This is obviously not the case, and her other comments speak for themselves without being addressed.

Now to Mr Feldman's response. Mr Feldman, could you please answer the question as to why your own leading researchers think the "diary" is a forgery, or are they wrong as well??? So just what NEW FACTS on the East End murders of 1888 are to be found in your book, after years of research and the expending of huge amounts of money? In fact your book is more of a study into Maybrick genealogy, the vicissitudes of human nature, and sheer frustration at not being able to PROVE any of the points it sets out to prove. Very few of the facts of the murders are looked at in any detail, and the book becomes more and more bogged down with genealogy and trying to prove the unproveable. Indeed, it can be seen, in the review of Mr Feldman's book in the latest issue of "Ripperologist" that the casual reader has great difficulty in understanding just what the book is about, the reviewer even having to borrow a copy of the "diary" book to even begin to grasp anything of what was being said.

In response to some of Mr Feldman's points - The "Eight Little Whores" poem and its origin. This has long been accepted, after careful study, by serious researchers, as an invention of no importance. It cannot be dated PRIOR TO 1959 when McCormick first published it. He is unable to PROVE its existence before then. It is dubious in the extreme and has NEVER been shown to have any historical significance.

The "Dutton Diaries". There is NO HJSTORICAL EVIDENCE that they are of any serious significance to the murders. The fact that Dr Dutton kept diaries is not unusual, most professional Victorian men did. Likewise most Victorian men also took an interest in the 1888 'Ripper' murders. This can be seen by the many, especially doctors, who wrote about the murders. So, Dr Duff on was a doctor, and was interested in the murders. So what? It PROVES absolutely nothing. Certainly it does not prove the existence of the so-called "Chronicles of Crime." Nothing, other than the fact that he kept a diary and was interested in the murders, AND other crimes of his time, is indicated.

The question of the farthings. We thought that this little canard had finally been disposed of by Phil Sugden and other writers. But no. Like the proverbial bad penny they are destined to eternally turn up. You can almost read the headlines "RETURN OF THE FARTHINGS!" Just when you thought it was safe to resume serious research... But this really does get very tiresome. Please, let's be sensible. For you, Mr Feldman, because they are mentioned in the "diary" they HAVE TO EXIST. They DID NOT EXIST. The full Police reports on the Chapman murder are in the Public Record Office. You can read them for yourself They list all that was in the yard with Chapman's body. There is no mention whatsoever of any coins, let alone farthings. Inspector Reid (not Inspector Chandler) made a comment, according to a press report, that coins were found under the body of Alice McKenzie in July 1889, as had been found in case of Annie Chapman. (In the McKenzie case a farthing was found under her body when it was moved). However, this is the only a sourced newspaper report with a reference to farthings being found in the Chapman murder, and that by a Detective Inspector who was away on leave at the time of the Chapman murder. Inspector Joseph Chandler of H Division attended, and reported on the Chapman murder and, as previously stated, made no mention of any farthings. Nor did Dr Bagster Phlllips who was also there. See Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" page 110 for a dismissal of the "farthings fable", and for the incorrect statements of Inspector Reid and Major Smith of the City Police.

Anne Barrett (Graham). Well, I do not wish this to be a personal attack on anyone, but why has she completely changed her story, from at first backing Mike Barrett on the provenance of the "diary", to the story she is telling now, as related by Mr Feldman? This sort of 'word of mouth', without any sort of corroborative evidence is simply not good enough. ESPECIALLY when the story changes! We NEED historical confirmation. The scientific tests which Mr Feldman claims to have failed to prove the "diary" a hoax (and this is arguable) are the very tests that Mr Feldman should be calling to prove the "diary" genuine. They HAVE NOT.

Mary Kelly's heart / the key. Mr Feldman, surely the main point here is that the evidence regarding Kelly's heart is inconclusive, not least of all because of the conflicting press reports. The fact that the heart was missing was reported in the newspapers at the time, as was also a report that when the body was put back together it was all there. Exactly what the truth of the matter was is not clear, especially as another newspaper, "The Observer", I believe, stated that the heart was taken away. Unfortunately Dr Bond is ambiguous on the point as he states that the heart was absent (from the pericardium), but not that it was missing from the scene. However, the fact that he lists the position of all the other organs removed from the body, but not the heart, seems to support the supposition that the murderer did actually take it away. What is patently clear from Dr Bond's report is that one breast was under the head and the other by the right foot, NOT on the table as the "diarist" TWICE states. Or are we to believe the silly arguments that he was confused, frenzied or had simply forgotten where he put them? No it just won't wash, one excuse after another having to be made to support false and incorrect statements made in the "diary". The missing key is also another "red herring" that the theorists love to wax lyrical over. The key was lost, the key was found, so what? It was mentioned in the newspapers and PROVES NOTHING.

The mention of the Charing Cross Hotel stems from the finding of a bag containing incriminating items left there by a gentleman guest who then disappeared. The report appears in "The Times" in April 1888, and refers to a bag left in the hotel in 1887. There is quite a long list of names of people who had left property behind including one named MIBRAC, which Mr Feldman believes to be sufficiently close to MAYBRICK to be suspicious. Evans and Gainey in their book cite the same incident in support of their suspect Tumblety which just goes to show how adaptable these reports are! But connected to Maybrick. I don't think so.

The will. The arguments over the will are seemingly unending and amount to very little. There IS ONLY ONE WILL, which still exists, and which is written IN THE HANDWRITING OF JAMES MAYBRICK. This handwriting is NOT the same as that of the "diary" and both are completely different to the writing in the 'Dear Boss' correspondence and the 'Lusk letter.' (Do I hear the approach of arguments about split-personalities, inconsistencies of handwriting and experts from the world over?) NO NO NO it simply will not do. The will argument, though, is academic as it bears no relevance to the central question of the authenticity of the 1'diary91, it is just another smokescreen.

Under your "Miscellaneous" section, Mr Feldman, you mention murders in Manchester. One or two? Really does it matter? The truth is that you and your team of researchers have been UNABLE TO FIND ANY MURDER IN ANY MANCHESTER as claimed in the "diary". Not in any newspaper, not in any official report.

And so it goes on. Tedium ad infinitum. DNA arguments are specious. I have no doubt that they would prove negative, IF they were conducted. If positive they still wouldn't prove James Maybrick to be 'Jack the Ripper', we are again arguing provenance here. If you are so keen to establish provenance, Mr Feldman, surely the cost of these DNA tests, a mere fraction of what you have already spent with NO POSITIVE RESULT, would be worth-while. Surely this should be done from your point of view (it is YOU after all, trying to convince everyone of what you say). I see no reason why Mr Harris, or anyone else for that matter, should have to foot the bill for this, when the majority have accepted it is a proven hoax anyway. It would be throwing good money after bad.

The "interview" with Billy Graham should be read (including between the lines), and the reader should draw his own conclusions. What the reader or Mr Feldman may decide from that is their OPINION only. But no independent, factual evidence to corroborate the story of provenance has been produced. Mr Graham was very sick, sounded confused, and was given leading questions when interviewed. It is casting no aspersion upon him at all to say that. This is very unsatisfactory indeed, and should a man in his condition have been subjected to the ordeal of an "interview" anyway?

The watch, or should it be TWO watches. If one doesn't fit the bill there must be a second one? Are we, honestly, expected to believe this? The first one which is produced is proved to be 'wrong' and, hey presto! There must be a second, phantom, watch, seen by no-one! This really does get more and more dubious. But perhaps those making the argument believe all that they say.

Whether or not Maybrick frequented London, worked there, didn't work there, had a mistress there, or stayed there is totally irrelevant to the argument. He probably did, as did thousands of others. He certainly visited his brother there. But what does it PROVE. Answer, nothing in relation to the murders. It is just another circumstantial argument, and it could be used for dozens of suspects. I don't hear Mr Harris shouting about it, but his preferred suspect, Robert Stephenson, was right there IN THE EAST END AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS, staying at the London Hospital. Not only that his name did appear in the contemporary Police suspects file! Maybrick's certainly did not.

Theorise all you like Mr Feldman, the Maybnck case was so celebrated in 1889 as a miscarriage of justice that there was much written as a result. The full and informative newspaper reports commenced in 1889 were followed by many books. It is very easy, from reading these readily available sources, to learn much about the Maybricks, AND the effects of taking arsenic.

The "Liverpool Minories letter91, just how many totally different letters are you going to call in support of your case?). This was just another of the many hundreds, nay thousands, of letters, received by the police and the press from September 1888 onwards. J. Hall Richardson brought it to the attention of the public in 1927, Mr Feldman, merely because that was the year his book was published. He used the letter in an illustrative way in the 'Ripper' section in his book. It was typical of letters received. Mr Richardson, a reporter at the time of the murders, probably kept that one as a souvenir as it was probably sent to his newspaper. No record of it being published in 1888 or 1889, or subsequently for that matter, has been found. He used it as an example of a type only. He gives a transcription of the letter in his book and shows the date as "2~h inst. " No year is mentioned. It was MISTRANSCRIBED by McCormick who dated it as "2~h September" (1888 implied) and made it into two letters instead of one.

Little comment need be made on Maybrick's health and habits, they are detailed in the many published sources from 1889 on and are available to the most basic of researchers. They merely have to consult the newspaper reports in the library, or the many books in the library. Read the details of this case and you, too, can become an expert on arsenic and its effects. Cocaine was taken by many Victorians, indeed so much so that even Conan Doyle ascribed the habit to his fictional hero Sherlock Holmes. Need we really say more?

Just about every serious researcher in England KNOWS that Edwin T Woodhall was a story teller, and fantasised and invented facts. You only have to read "When London Walked In Terror" to see this. No Mr Feldman, he did not merely make errors, he invented as well. The poem he quotes, as Mr Harris has already pointed out to you, he claimed he had taken from the contemporary press. Why then can it NOT BE FOUND THERE? The newspapers still exist - check them, the poem does not exist outside Woodhall1s pages.

Melvin Harris is making his stand on PRINCIPLE, and an ingrained desire to get to the truth of the matter. He KNOWS it is a fraud - he does not want the less well informed reader to be misled.

Mr Gary Vespucci has leapt into the defence of the "diary" with seemingly more enthusiasm than knowledge. He has thus invited an answer from someone other than Mr Harris, whom he seems to be unable to believe. I do not wish to cast any aspersion on Mr Vespucci, but by leaping into print he is asking for a response. I am pleased to hear of his interest, and that he "enjoyed" reading Mr Harris's rebuttal. If, as he has stated, he was convinced by "The Final Chapter", I am left asking convinced of what? The book, and this CANNOT BE DEMED, does NOT PROVE either that James Maybrick was 'Jack the Ripper' nor that Anne Barrett and the Johnsons, were related to Mr or Mrs Maybrick, or to each other. This is not "a dig" at anybody - IT IS FACT.

Whatever you may think of Mr Harris's rhetoric, I suggest that you look at the points made by Mr Harris again, they cannot be satisfactorily answered by Mr Feldman. I don't think that Mr Harris exactly calls Anne Barrett (Graham) a liar, he merely points out that her story has changed, which, undeniably, it has. THJS is NOT in question. He also allows that Billy Graham, when interviewed, was elderly, ill and confused.

The following is not a personal criticism of Mr Feldman, but is in answer to a point raised by Mr Vespucci who states that he (Mr Feldman) has put years of research into REAL evidence.

Really Mr Vespucci? No, Mr Feldman paid others to put in lengthy research, and that mainly into the Maybrick family and genealogy. At least this is the area in which he ran up his biggest bills. AND STILL the results, to be as charitable as possible, are INCONCLUSIVE. He has found NOTHING NEW AND SOLID on the East End murders of 1888, if he has WHAT ARE THESE NEW FACTS? The argument becomes confused and misleading to those who do not know their subject well. Mr Harris does and has been researching the subject MANY MORE YEARS than Mr Feldman. Mr Vespucci asks for the "diary11 to be proved a fake. It has been proved a fake to the satisfaction of all the well-informed historians of the murders, and to most others also. These are not people WHO HAVE ONLY READ BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT, they are PRIMARY SOURCE researchers.

Mr Vespucci, I can assure you that Mr Harris is not a liar. I do not think that Mr Feldman would even claim that. The real "diary" debate ceased in England a long time ago, it almost universally being accepted as a hoax. One or two have clung on claiming it to be "worthy of further research" as it is, they think, an old forgery. Fair enough, let them research it if that is what they want to do. But Mr Vespucci, if you want to get involved in this debate then I suggest you learn your subject first, and learn it well. By quoting Sickert, Woodhall, and McCormick as reliable sources you are showing your inexperience. Yes, the 'Ripper' case WILL NEVER be satisfactorily resolved, it will go on, never fear, Mr Vespucci. Whatever may or may not be good enough for you, Mr Vespucci, I hate to spoil your illusions. Please consult other authors/experts on the case and see just what they think of the "diary". And, with every respect, they know a lot more than you do. They will tell you the "diary" is a fraud, it IS NOT merely Melvin Harris saying, "I am Melvin Harris, I am right." As it happens he IS right.

The arguments can go on and on forever. Handwriting, when all is said and done, is an inexact science and, unless certain people 'put their hands up' (Mike Barrett already has) then it is virtually impossible to prove just who did what. Suffice to say - they did it!

More difficult to understand is "JackMaybri". But perhaps his pseudonym gives away not only his bias, but also his way of thinking. "JackMaybri", henceforward JM, is probably a highly successful lawyer. But, JM, you are paddling in deep waters and getting out of your depth, when you get involved in this subject. I, too, entered a law career at the age of eighteen, before you were born! As a "thirty-something American attorney" you really should be arguing from a standpoint of primary-source research that you, yourself, have done. It is not good enough to read this or that book. They ALL contain errors. I would not criticise you for finding the "diary" a fascinating and engrossing document, fiction often is. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, it is quite a leap from there to criticising a known and respected writer and researcher such as Mr Harris. You may speculate about the alleged "inventors" of the "diary", but it is neither clever nor scholarly. You have not really been taken in, you have merely made an honest misinterpretation of what you believed to be a factual presentation of an historical document.

Let us get this straight here and now. When you say "Melvin Harris's case against the Feldman book," what you should be saying is "the leading experts' case against the Feldman book." For all the knowledgeable on this subject agree as regards the "diary." The unbiased and objective observers of the case ALL AGREE WITH MELVIN HARRIS. JM I do not agree with you when you say that it may be disingenuous when Mr Harris talks about what sources were necessary to invent the "diary." After all, he was asked that very question and has obliged with an answer, but he is still told he is wrong! However, does it really matter what sources were used? MI the relevant material for a post-1987 forgery is there in various books. This is the very REASON WIIY MR FELDMAN AND HIS ASSOCIATES are at pains to TRY and prove, at THE VERY LEAST, that the "diary" provenance pre-dates 1987. Thereby it is given some sort of arguable authenticity, as then it would contain certain previously unpublished facts. Fact or/and fiction works used as an inspiration by the forgers, does it really matter? They were all there to be used.

As you have never seen the 1937 Woodhall book (a surprising admission when you are passing judgment on it!) it may be appropriate to advise you that you may purchase a modem re-print of it, very cheaply, which is advertised, I believe, in Stephen Ryder's Casebook. Yes, the original is a rare book, but by no means unobtainable, and Mr Feldman and his team would have had a copy at the very start of their work. Again, it must be stated, Woodhall IS KNOWN TO HAVE INVENTED "FACTS". He cannot be relied upon as a source for a factual work on the 'Ripper'. This 1937 Mellifont book borders on 'pulp fiction.' READ IT AND SEE FOR YOURSELF. The roles of various police officers in the case, especially Abberline, are well-known and were to the readers of newspapers back in 1888, no mystery there.

The finding of a confessional "diary" really does not need explaining, it was preceded by the fake "Abberline diary". The authors of the "A to Z" claimed that given enough time, money and resource they could find the answer. Mr Feldman has provided the time, money and resource - BUT WE STILL DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER. This is an undeniable fact that all three authors can but agree with!

JM then descends into even murkier waters and reveals the fact that he is further losing his way. Does he not REALISE that Melvin Harris's suspect, Stephenson, as I have already pointed out, is a genuine historical suspect whose name appeared in the official suspects files? Sorry for repeating this but it really does need pointing out again. He was there IN THE EAST END AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS. Yes, many disagree with Mr Harris that he was the killer, but he remains a genuine suspect all the same.

All the controversy over THE VERY UNSATISFACTORY PROVENANCE of the "diary" and the fact that there is not a "whisper" of it to be found prior to 1992, should set anyone's alarm bells ringing. It really is INGENUOUS of JM to accept this "diary" as fact WITHOUT ANY REAL EVIDENCE. A lawyer should understand the rules of evidence, and something of human nature, apply them to the "diary" JM and see what you come up with.

You state, JM, that Begg, Skinner, Fido, Fairclough etc. (all at some stage involved with the "diary" research, although only Fido was totally "anti-diary") are "sceptics who find the diary interesting and who want to learn more." They still don't have an answer five years, two books, many late nights and £150,000 later. The answer then must be, for them, beyond reach. It MUST BE SIGNIFICANT that Paul Begg STILL does not embrace the "diary" theory (he still sticks with Anderson/Kosminski) nor does he agree with Mr Feldman and his conclusions. A very thorny problem for Mr Feldman. Why is this? - simply because Mr Begg DOES NOT AGREE WITH THEM AND DOES NOT FOR ONE MINUTE THINK THAT JAMES MAYBRICK WAS JACK THE RIPPER - HE HAS SAID SO. Do you, JM, know something that Mr Begg does not? I am sure that Mr Feldman would like you, as a lawyer, to convince Mr Begg.

F This whole thing is not a question of "associates" or '9camps" It is a simple case of FACT v FICTION. JM, if you have not read Mr Sugden's book, please do so and disillusion yourself He thoroughly, and we thought finally, dismissed the '9diary"/Maybrick hoax for just what it is. Do not compromise yourself further by becoming involved in matters which you do not fully understand. I can assure you that of Mr Feldman and Mr Harris, the latter has the more scholarly approach by a mile. I defy you to find ANY RECOGMSED RIPPER EXPERT who would disagree with that in writing, or otherwise.

The ridiculous 99M'1 business is a nonsensical fiction from start to finish, and should only be read in novels. All the arguments about it succeed in doing is to cloud the issue even more with irrelevancies. The piece of envelope found at the Chapman murder scene is NOT A MYSTERY, it was picked up by Chapman in the lodging-house kitchen to keep her pills in. This was witnessed, and evidence given to that effect at the inquest. The police investigated it fully and came to the same conclusion, it was not a clue at all. The "M" on it was undoubtedly the start of either "M[r]" or "M[rs] as in an address. I have examined the original of the Kelly photograph and am at a loss to see '9FM" amongst all the markings on the partition. If you study it carefully you may see many things, including making certain marks into an uneven "M", a "B'9 or even a "P". It is an out of focus area of the photograph, and in common with many so-called 9'ghost photographs" the imagination can create a lot.

Where, JM, do you find the source to state "the issue of the 'farthings'. The consensus is that they were indeed found by Chapman's body"? A surprising and incredible statement for a lawyer to make when he has not even seen the originals of the evidence available, especially the police reports on the murder which are there to be seen at Kew. As you will see, I have already addressed this question.

The old arguments go on and on when people refuse to stick to the facts. You refer to "the Stride knife." What is this wonderful clue? The only item of cutlery in Stride's possession was a metal spoon. The only knife referred to at Stride's inquest was a "chandler's" or "slicing" knife, blunted, which had been found on Monday, October 1st 1888, in the Whitechapel Road. This was shown to have nothing to do with the murder. So just what are you referring to?

The 1889 references to diaries were in the newspapers and concerned three small diaries of Mrs Maybnck. They have no connection whatsoever with the alleged James Maybrick "diary". Another red-herring to confuse the issue.

JM is, however, to be congratulated on the fact that he recognises handwriting experts to be inconsistent, and their conclusions should be treated "with caution". Surely the watch argument has been has been suitably addressed, it did not belong to James Maybrick and does not have a Jack the Ripper confession scratched in it! (Can anyone really believe a story like that???)

Well JM, you ARE entitled to your opinion and I am pleased to hear that you have entered the fray "with humor and goodwill", no more than that could be asked. I wish you goodwill and please accept my words of advice, they are not given with any ill will. Please look back on the evidence presented at the time of the murders before reaching your final conclusions. To finish may I say the following. If the "diary" and Paul Feldman's arguments in support of it are correct, and meet their grandiose claims, then why haven't two of the most scholarly and objective writers on the case, Don Rumbelow and Phil Sugden, hailed it as the answer at last, or, at the very least, say that it was worth further research. They HAVE NOT. They have dismissed it as a hoax, they have NO TIME FOR IT. They should know.

But perhaps the last word on the "diary" and Paul Feldman's book should go to that most respected and objective observer of all things 'Ripper', Mr Richard Whittington-Egan, who has been referred to as "the doyen of true crime writers." He was treading the scenes of the murders before any other modern writer on this subject. We eagerly await his verdict on both in his pending, definitive, volume on all 'Ripper' literature, 'The Quest For Jack the Ripper."