Author: Sarah R. Jacobs
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 12:56 am |        |
Just trying to keep all of the possibilities open. I don't see any evidence of this, myself, but the idea of it came to me half-dealy-serious, and half-risible.
Sarah |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 03:35 am | |
Hi Sarah
I seem to recall that we actually considered this, a suggestion being that either Florence forged it or someone forged it on her behalf as proof that James Maybrick was the Ripper and thus providing mitigation for his murder. If such was the purpose of the forgery, it would never have been used when Florence pleaded innocent of murder because the 'diary' would have provided a motive for murder and thus worked against her. |
Author: sam
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 08:08 pm | |
Hello Paul,Sarah
Just a short note to say I have looked at the possibility that florie had got someone like Brierly to write it for her (With her being female I am sure she would have put some sort of dates). I have read the diary several times over and over again. It seems clear to me whoever wrote it had it in for James (if James did not write it himself).
Sam |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 10:23 am | |
Hello.
Something perhaps to think about: the torn corner of a photograph was found wedged in the binding of the diary. Kenneth Rendell when examining the first page of the diary with ultraviolet light, found a square pattern consistent with the impression that would have been left by a photograph mounted on the previous (missing) page. According to Rendell (see his book Forging History) this square was the indentical size of a standard photograph that was popularly used during the time between the First and Second World Wars. Thus, if the diary were an old forgery, it would be unlikely for it to pre-date 1920.
Since Florie had been out of prison for many years in the 20s, and was well into her transformation into the reclusive 'cat lady', I think it can be safely ruled out that the diary had anything to do with freeing Florie, framing James Maybrick, etc. All in my humble opinion, of course.
I used to wonder if the diary started out as a piece of fiction, and not a forgery, and someone (Mike Barrett, for instance) decided to write it out in long-hand in an old scrapbook and try to pawn it off as genuine. It's a little Jane Eyre-ish if you ask me. The diarist's preoccupation with the Maybrick children is a feminine touch, I think; most men wouldn't have thought along those lines. Women dating diary enteries is an interesting thought; but in 1990 (a couple years before the diary became public) Valerie Martin published a bestselling novel called Mary Reilly which has a Victorian maid in the service of Dr. Jekyll (and Mr. Hyde, of course) writing a diary without dating the enteries. A fictional epilogue to the novel discusses how this diary was discovered in Bray, having made its way from London, and debates as to whether or not it is genuine. I wonder if something like this could have inspired the creation of the Maybrick diary. The timing is right.
(By the way, Mary Reilly was made into a simply awful film starring Julia Roberts and John Malkovich a few years later. Don't rent it)
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 12:35 pm | |
Thanks for that, RJP. I'll try to avoid the movie! For what it's worth, when playing the permutations game we thought about an old forgery and why it might have been created. One idea was that a journalist planned to do a story (along the lines of Matters) and simply penned the 'diary' as a tangible something to bang onto the Commissioning Editor's desk. Either the project was turned down or something prevented it from going ahead, such as the outbreak of WWII in 1939.
One point on which I could really do with some illumination, though, is the question of the period in which the handwriting indicates that the forger was schooled. I have somewhere in the dimmer recesses of my brain a notion that somebody said it revealed a hand schooled in the 1920s. Which would write out both Mike and Anne as the penperson. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 04:08 pm | |
Hi, Paul:
I believe the ink has been dated to a median date in the 1920s, has it not? I believe that is in Rendell's report at the back of the U.S. Hyperion edition. To my knowledge, no one has said the handwriting resembles the writing of a person either who lived in the 1920s, or as you put it, who had "a hand schooled in the 1920s." Did Sue Iremonger or some other handwriting expert tender such an opinion? If so, I don't recall reading that she/he did. To my eye, the handwriting from the first time I saw the facsimile of the Diary looked then, and still does to me now, utterly modern, and contemporary with those of us who live today, meaning you and me, Paul, and everyone else reading this post. I would contend that the forger(s) are either still alive or if he/she/they are not still with us, there are those alive who know who the forgers were.
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 06:04 pm | |
| It was Rendell's statement. He said "The style of handwriting is indicative of the early to mid-twentieth century at the earliest--not late 19th century." (p. 255, Blake edition of Harrison's book) |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 09:47 pm | |
Thanks RJ
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 04:05 am | |
Hi All,
Paul,
Page 174 of Feldy's paperback:
'One expert who had originally claimed that the diary had been written 'by someone most likely to have been schooled in the 1930s' was now happy to accept it was written by someone [Mike] not born until 1950!'
I also found the following, on page 379 of Shirley's 1998 update:
'In January 1998 I was told by an unreliable source that Melvin Harris had changed tack and was considering the possibility that the Diary was the work of journalists in the 1930s - a concept we had ourselves looked at. This rumour was later confirmed by a more reliable contact.'
Shirley writes that she wrote to Melvin about this but received no answer.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 05:54 am | |
Ah, good. I'm gratified that my memory wasn't playing tricks.
I wonder how these things are determined. How can an early 20th hand been distinguished from a late 19th? But if any credence is to be put in Rendell's statement then we're looking at a style of writing taught or practiced somewhere between 1900-1950, presumably somewhere midway between those dates (1930 would fit), not a hand schooled 1950 onwards (which would rule out Mike and Anne as the penpersons). I wouldn't want to put too much emphasis on thais, but it's interesting all the same.
Thanks all. |
Author: Brad Caldwell
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 04:37 pm | |
| Hi all! I'm new here. I'm so glad I finally found this outlet! Anyway, in regards to Florie writing the Diary, I find it highly unlikely. Florie had made it clear throughout her trial to her defense team that any damning evidence that could hurt James' character (his affairs for instance) would be held back. Also, from what I have read about her, Florie seemed a little too feeble to be able to concoct the Diary. I personally believe she was innocent of the charges tried against her. To write the Diary later as revenge against James and his family for her conviction still does not go with her character. It is an interesting thought though. I've actually considered Michael Maybrick as the author. Has he ever been named as such?Looking forward to many conversations with you all!Brad |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 10:13 am | |
Hi Brad,
Yes, I believe it has been suggested on occasion that Michael Maybrick wrote the diary, although you won't find many takers on these message boards. Melvin Harris claims to have privileged information confirming his own theory, that the diary is a modern fake, forged by persons yet to be named, at some point between 1987 and 1992, when it was finally placed by Mike Barrett for publication.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Brad Caldwell
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 04:27 pm | |
Hi Caz!
I've read that about Melvin Harris having that information. To my understanding it's never been published. Am I right in thinking that? I am reading Paul Feldman's book "The Final Chapter" right now. I go back and forth on the diary. I think it's a possibilty. I believe though that Florie had nothing to do with it even if James did. Bye for now!
 B |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 06:29 am | |
Hi Brad,
Yes, you are right in thinking that Melvin's information has not been published - yet. I am hoping that one day the truth will come out, so my curiosity will be satisfied and I can get back to doing normal things like gardening, housework, decorating, working on my tax forms.... on second thoughts, perhaps it's not so bad remaining curious for a while longer.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 04 January 2002 - 06:27 pm | |
Dear Mum
Just thought I would send you a list of what I plan to do next week when I am let out of gaol.
1) Go and see some nuns in Cornwall.
2) Forge a diary, pretend it was written by my late husband and sign it 'Jack the Ripper'.
3) Grow some pretty flowers.
4) Buy a knife, find that bitch Yapp and cut her up.
5) Give myself a new name.
6) Let the forged diary be given to a family who bear my "new" name, thus ensuring that long after my death the idea will prevail that I did not intend to murder James at all, and that he was in fact Jack the Ripper.
7) Err, that's it.
See you soon
Love
Florie
P.S. Did you manage to destroy that photograph, taken by Yapp, which shows me stood next to James' bed administering arsenic to his Revelenta? |
