The original Italian version of this article is available here.
In 1992 a manuscript pretending to be Jack the Ripper's personal journal was made public by Mike Barrett, an unemployed former scrap metal dealer in Liverpool; the author's name does not appear anywhere, but it is clear from the context that it would be James Maybrick, a Liverpool cotton merchant born in 1838 and died in 1889 probably after being poisoned by his wife.
Barrett never fully explained where the document was kept between the death of the alleged author and its publication, at first he claimed that he was given as a present by a friend in a pub and then changed his version saying that it was Barrett's wife (who had kept it for decades) to give it to his friend so he could give it to Mike.
The text was published in a book entitled The Diary of Jack The Ripper: the discovery, the investigation, the debate, and was accompanied by an analysis by writer Shirley Harrison who supports its authenticity. The publisher of book, Robert Smith, is the current owner of the manuscript and agrees with Harrison.
The diary tells the life of James Maybrick and describes in detail the five murders in Whitechapel he allegedly committed. At the time Maybrick was considered completely foreign to the facts, the police never investigated him or found other documents indicating him as a suspect. The man is on the list of modern suspects only because of this diary.
Numerous examinations for dating have been carried out on the text but gave inconclusive results. However just reading the text is enough to realize that it contains too many absurdities and factual errors to be legitimate. First of all, Maybrick did not live in London, so it is not clear why he would have chosen Whitechapel to carry out his murders; secondly, the man had no in-depth knowledge of the area, which the actual Ripper must necessarily have. Also at the time of the murders Maybrick was fifty years old, while the Ripper's profile (for example the one written by FBI agent John Douglas) suggests that the killer was between 20 and 40 years old.
In addition to these considerations it should be noted that the book contains errors that the killer could not make. It says, for example, that after removing Mary Kelly's breasts the killer placed them on the bedside table next to the bed, but this is not true: one of the breasts was actually found under the woman's head and the other at her feet together with the liver.
The author of the manuscript also claims to be the author of many of the letters sent to the press or police during the time of the Whitechapel murders, but today most researchers claim that those letters were fakes.
One of the clues proposed by those who believe the diary is authentic is that the killer wrote FM on the wall next to the body of Mary Kelly with the victims's blood; the letters would be the initials of Maybrick's wife, Florence Maybrick, indicating that the man saw his wife in Mary Kelly while killing her. Frankly this assertion is beyond ridiculous, in the proposed images the two letters seem to be only blood stains on the wall without a precise shape. This is clearly a case of pareidolia. Moreover, no one would make a reference to his wife using the both her first and last names.
In 1995 Barrett confessed in two affidavits that the text of the diary was a forgery created by him and his wife, but retracted shortly after adding confusion to an already quite tangled situation.
In September of 2017 Robert Smith published a book that allegedly proves the authenticity of the diary. We have not read Smith's text yet, but it is more than obvious that the diary is a fake, and not even good one. Even if Smith could prove that the diary dates back to the Victorian era this may at most lead to the conclusion that James Maybrick was a mythomaniac who attributed to himself deeds he did not do.
In a nutshell, reading the diary is enough to understand that the text itself is fake. James Maybrick can surely be excluded from the list of suspects.
Amazon Link: The Diary of Jack the Ripper
In 1992 a manuscript pretending to be Jack the Ripper's personal journal was made public by Mike Barrett, an unemployed former scrap metal dealer in Liverpool; the author's name does not appear anywhere, but it is clear from the context that it would be James Maybrick, a Liverpool cotton merchant born in 1838 and died in 1889 probably after being poisoned by his wife.
Barrett never fully explained where the document was kept between the death of the alleged author and its publication, at first he claimed that he was given as a present by a friend in a pub and then changed his version saying that it was Barrett's wife (who had kept it for decades) to give it to his friend so he could give it to Mike.
The diary tells the life of James Maybrick and describes in detail the five murders in Whitechapel he allegedly committed. At the time Maybrick was considered completely foreign to the facts, the police never investigated him or found other documents indicating him as a suspect. The man is on the list of modern suspects only because of this diary.
Numerous examinations for dating have been carried out on the text but gave inconclusive results. However just reading the text is enough to realize that it contains too many absurdities and factual errors to be legitimate. First of all, Maybrick did not live in London, so it is not clear why he would have chosen Whitechapel to carry out his murders; secondly, the man had no in-depth knowledge of the area, which the actual Ripper must necessarily have. Also at the time of the murders Maybrick was fifty years old, while the Ripper's profile (for example the one written by FBI agent John Douglas) suggests that the killer was between 20 and 40 years old.
In addition to these considerations it should be noted that the book contains errors that the killer could not make. It says, for example, that after removing Mary Kelly's breasts the killer placed them on the bedside table next to the bed, but this is not true: one of the breasts was actually found under the woman's head and the other at her feet together with the liver.
The author of the manuscript also claims to be the author of many of the letters sent to the press or police during the time of the Whitechapel murders, but today most researchers claim that those letters were fakes.
In 1995 Barrett confessed in two affidavits that the text of the diary was a forgery created by him and his wife, but retracted shortly after adding confusion to an already quite tangled situation.
In September of 2017 Robert Smith published a book that allegedly proves the authenticity of the diary. We have not read Smith's text yet, but it is more than obvious that the diary is a fake, and not even good one. Even if Smith could prove that the diary dates back to the Victorian era this may at most lead to the conclusion that James Maybrick was a mythomaniac who attributed to himself deeds he did not do.
In a nutshell, reading the diary is enough to understand that the text itself is fake. James Maybrick can surely be excluded from the list of suspects.
Amazon Link: The Diary of Jack the Ripper
Uh no. Il diario e’ vero. Come dicesse Hannibal, “Leggi Marco Aurelio e leggi anche Thomas Harris!” Serial killers sono artisti e poeti. Sono indicatori omicidi ed indicatori del Primo Principio non acettati dal autorita accettata. Non puo essere un altro Thomas Harris.
RispondiEliminaPeccato che il supposto diario non sia un poema, ma sia scritto in prosa.
EliminaC'e' una dozzina di poesie. Almeno non sei contro l'idea dei SK e la poesia. Harris ha messo Blake nel Red Dragon. Il Diario ha Richard Crashaw (O costly intercourse of death).
RispondiEliminahttps://whitechapeljack.com/the-james-maybrick-diary/
Mi occupo di serial killer da anni (sul mio canale YouTube, ad esempio) è non é mai emerso che scrivere poesie sia un tratto distintivo dei serial killer. Detto questo, il diario è un falso e quindi se contiene poesie o meno non ha importanza.
EliminaAlmeno dimmi che credi che esistano persone omicide per natura, non solo assassini di lussorio. Sono interessato da oltre quattro decenni e ho fatto bene studiare Thomas Harris e i film del suo lavore.
RispondiEliminaQuesta sarebbe una domanda per psichiatri e sinceramente non so rispondere. Comunque Thomas Harris è un autore di fiction, non un investigatore o uno scienziato. C'è ben altro da studiare a partire da John Douglas.
RispondiEliminaSwitching to English since this page is English, Harris was an investigative crime journalist before becoming a fiction writer. What option do you have for ideas like these. Art and murder is only mentioned in fiction. Not since the 70s has anyone openly talked about the connection between creativity and destruction that I know of. Mathematics and murder is discussed online here and there though. Steinbeck openly discussed serial killers in East of Eden in a fundamental way but that was in the 50s when you could still say things and not just hint at it like Thomas Harris does. Cinema of course shoves those hints in your face. But the important ideas are lost in the popularity and celebrity.
RispondiEliminaGreat, switching language in the middle of a discussion is the best way to create confusion and make sure no one understands it. You keep talking about fiction writers, Steinbeck too was not an investigator. I would never start from either him or Harris to study serial murders, I mentioned John Douglas and there are many others such as Ressler or Hazelwood, Harris is not in the list. There's no connection at all between serial killers and art, that's ludicrous. This discussion is taking us nowhere because you think serial killers are romantic heroes and you only know novels. Don't publish other comments because I will reject them. You run out of the time I could give you.
Elimina