Customer Reviews

The DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

I've been interested in Jack the Ripper for as long as I can remember. ...

So, I happened upon this book and read it with great interest. I must say that even then, I was skeptical, and by no stretch of the imagination did I consider this book to be the resounding final solution that some still hold it up as. But I was still fascinated by this book the first time I read it, and there is a lot of decent information on the killings...which is why I've given it the two stars.

Then there's the actual diary. Well, the people who still advocate the notion that this diary is authentic have a rude awakening in store. It's not. The more I read on Jack the Ripper, and the more times I read the diary, the more obvious it became that the diary was NOT written by Jack the Ripper...or even James Maybrick...but by someone living in the 20th century who thought it would be "cool" to elaborately pull the wool over the eyes of Ripperologists worldwide. Well, it hasn't worked. And here are the reasons that the Maybrick diary is a fake.

First of all, there are some anachronisms in language in the diary itself, giving it away as a modern hoax. That's pretty cut and dried, but not nearly as damning as other factors.

There are many errors in "Maybrick's" descriptions of the crimes, and the crime scenes. It's interesting to note that all of this erroneous information can be found in old newspaper clippings from 1888, when the murders were occuring. But, as was often the case in Victorian times, many of the newspaper stories were quite wrong about the details of the crimes. The newspaper stories don't match the reports of the police officials and/or medical examiners involved...the people who actually gathered the information. So, we can conclude that much of the "factual" information in the Maybrick diary seems to rely on old news clippings, rather than the firsthand experience of the murderer. Surely, if Maybrick WAS Jack the Ripper, he'd know exactly what organs were missing from whom, and where key body parts were located if they were removed and left behind. He'd also know that Jack didn't take the key to Mary Kelly's flat with him when he fled the scene, etc. Unfortunately, the person who forged this diary DIDN'T know some of those facts.

Also, it's interesting to note that there are many parallels between this diary and the "Dear Boss" letter (which gave Jack the Ripper his name). If you read the diary with the chronology of the Ripper's murders and letters in mind, you'll see that "Maybrick" uses the very specific phrase "funny little games" (which was prominent in the Dear Boss letter) twice BEFORE the Dear Boss letter was ever written or sent. This would mean that, were the diary genuine, Maybrick would have to be the author of the Dear Boss letter, as well. But the Dear Boss letter is commonly accepted among Ripperologists as a fraud, written by someone other than the killer (much like this diary). One high-ranking police official who worked the case even had a pretty good idea who wrote the letter...and that person was a young, aspiring journalist. Couple this with the obvious fact that the handwriting in the diary in NO WAY resembles the handwriting in the Dear Boss letter, and we've found yet another broken link in the chain of this hoax.

I could go on and on, listing reasons that I know this diary to be a fraud...but that would be self-indulgent, especially since the most damning piece of evidence against the authenticity of this diary is the most simple one of all.

Michael Barrett brought this diary to Shirley Harrison, claiming that it had been given to him by a friend. The friend had said "No questions asked," and given no reason on earth as to WHY he would give this diary to Barrett. Surely, if his friend had ever been in possession of such a book, he would have gone public himself, rather than GIVING AWAY what could have been the most vital (and valuable) piece of serial killer memorabilia/evidence ever uncovered. Conveniently, Barrett's friend was dead by the time Barrett decided to bring the diary to the attention of anyone...therefore, he could neither confirm nor deny anything Barrett said...and so, Barrett could say whatever he wanted. And what Barrett eventually said...after all of the debate and controversy, after Shirley Harrison had written this book, after countless researchers spent countless hours analyzing this diary of his...was that he himself had written the diary, and that his wife had handwritten it in the old scrapbook, using his typed notes as a guide. End of story.

So, due to all of the evidence against the diary's authenticity, including the admission of the actual author that he had masterminded the entire hoax, the James Maybrick Diary controversy can be put entirely to rest. Therefore, this book is interesting only as a curio, and as a source of some factual information on the Ripper murders (but none that can't be found in other, better Ripper books). Give it a read, but don't buy into it. The debate is over. And Jack the Ripper remains, as he always shall, unidentified.

This book, although quire interesting as a "who was Jack" theory, just did not ring true. The diary itself allegedly written by James Maybrick is the problem, it just does not seem plausible. The author spent an awful lot of time making things fit to the diary rather than the other way around and it just did not convince me. Also taking into account that the owner of the diary was an aspiring and unsucessful writer and that he did not explain satisfactorily how he came to find it, I find this theory a bit hard to swallow. Entertaining though if you are interested in Jack the Ripper.

The Diary of Jack the Ripper is an extremely informative, readable book that kept me wanting to know more. I have read much about Jack the Ripper but this is the first book that truely explains many of the questions I've had. The initials "FM" on the wall at Mary Kelly's murder scene absolutely fit with the idea that James Maybrick was taking out his anger over his wife Florie's infidelity. The chapter on Florie's trial was informative without getting too detailed. However, one question I do have is about the authenticity of the gold watch. The book states that the victims initials were engraved on the inside of the watch along with the words "I am Jack". If this were truely the Ripper's watch, wouldn't the two Liverpool victims also be listed? Why only the Whitechapel victims? If you're a history buff, or have even a mild fascination with the mystery behind Jack the Ripper, you'll enjoy this book

I have studied the Ripper lore for the past few years, and have found any and all suspects difficult to substantiate their motive for being the actual Ripper. This diary, if it is indeed, a true piece of work, sheds a new light on the inner darkness of one of the most notorious villains of modern history. The clues, if again they are authentic are unmistakable and given the circumstances of Mr.Maybrick's twisted life, make perfect sense and grasp the Ripper's inner torment. I found this book fascinating from its historical account of Victorian England to the authentification struggles the author and her colleagues experienced. Even if one thinks the diary is a hoax, the read in itself is fascinating. Cheers!

In 1992 a junk dealer from London, Michael Barrett, presented what would become known as "the Maybrick diary", attempting to ping the guilt of being Jack the Ripper on James Maybrick. The "diary" became a media event, and people interested in making money and gain of it have attempted to "prove" its "authenticity"; needless to say, they were unable to, for one simple reason - it is a crude forgery, which was in fact quickly and shoddily updated as new Ripper facts came to light (e.g. when it was revealed that Mary Kelly's heart was missing, the forger was in process of creating the "diary" - and he quickly added an awkward note "No heart, no heart..." to the "Kelly section", but forgot to use the same ink to write it!)

It would take too much space to list literally hundreds of errors and inconsistencies in the "diary", as well as dozens of proofs for its inauthenticity. Instead, a good summary is simply the fact that on 5 January 1995, Barrett admitted to the forgery. To quote his sworn affidavit: "Since December 1993 I have been trying, through the press, the Publishers, the Author of the Book, Mrs Harrison, and my Agent Doreen Montgomery to expose the fraud of ' The Diary of Jack the Ripper ' ("the diary") (...) The facts of this matter are outlined as follows: I Michael Barrett was the author of the original diary of 'Jack the Ripper' and my wife, Anne Barrett, hand wrote it from my typed notes and on occasions at my dictation, the details of which I will explain in due course. The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came I time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possibility. We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter. I felt Maybrick was an ideal candidate for Jack the Ripper. Most important of all, he could not defend himself. He was not 'Jack the Ripper' of that I am certain, but, times, places, visits to London and all that fitted. It was too easy. I told my wife Anne Barrett, I said, "Anne I'll write a best seller here, we can't fail". Once I realised we could do it. We had to find the necessary materials, paper, pens and ink. I gave this serious consideration. Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book (...) Sworn at Liverpool in the County of Merseyside, this 5th day of January 1995"

Stay away from this crude forgery and don't support people who try to peddle it as "the real thing". The same kind of people would try to sell you "splinters from Christ's cross" in the Middle Ages...

I found this book to be a fascinating and interesting read. However, as to the diaries authenticity, it can be anyones guess. There are certain facts brought up in the book to authenticate the diary; but again, everyone loves a conspiracy. I won't go as far to say I believe that we now know the true identity of "Jack the Ripper", however; I will say that it is most entertaining....and does give one insight as to how a delusioned mind works. The reading can be spellbounding at times. The fact remains, however, that the true identity of "the ripper" himself is yet to remain a mystery. But...read the book and decide for yourself.

If you believe the authenticity of this diary then there can be no doubt that James Maybrick was the infamous Whitechapel murderer. The debate about the diary's authenticity is in itself exciting. Kudos to Colin Wilson's exhaustive analysis and search for the truth. Maybrick's own chilling words as he records his thoughts provides fascinating reading. Many questions are raised by the author and Colin Wilson with a promise to answer same in the future. It's been over two years, and my curiousity is itching for more! Of all the Ripper theories I've read, this one is the most convincing. There is more evidence supporting James Maybrick as the Ripper than in all the other theories combined. A Ripping Read!!! RGW

Okay, say the name on the tip of your tongue - The Diary of Jack the Ripper - and watch as the dollar signs flicker before your eyes. It was bound to happen sooner or later. The reason why the Diary is still popular today is because a few Ripperologists attached their name to it and few have had the guts to actually say that they where wrong and walk away from it. The Diary is essentially a mini-volume of notes allegedly written by James Maybrick, around the time of the Whitechapel murders, that sign at the end as "Jack the Ripper". So how does it read? Well it is reasonably fair to say that it is very creative reading and does keep you entertained, but then again that is exactly what it is meant to do. What we know today is that it is undoubtedly a forgery because the owner of the book Michael Barrett simply admitted to forging it himself. End of story, really. So you might enjoy this book but remember that it is only fiction and the case is still far from solved.

What one must remember is that James Maybrick is still a Ripper suspect and was a Ripper suspect long before the advent of the Ripper Diary so don't discount this suspect just on the bases of this book being a forgery.

Click on the authors name and have a good look around. I am sure you will be impressed and the message will finally sink home. Shame about the Ripperologists who went pair-shaped hooking up with this book as the Real McCoy. There have been a few causalities because of it.

I first read Shirley Harrisons 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' in 1993 and was completely intrigued. Here for the first time was something concrete against someone thought to have been the Whitechapel murderer. Evidence that seemed to be more than circumstantial and to my utter surprise everyone seemed to revolt against the very idea. Instead of reading what the book had to tell with an open mind, people automatically claimed it to be a hoax, bashing everything the author implied. Then recently I read the 1998 updated version of the same book, which included new evidence and more information that had come to light during further investigations. To date, Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman have spent many years trying to solve the mystery of this elusive diary and subsequently, the watch. Its been the most expensive Ripper investigation to date. And still today, no one has conclusively been able to prove that the diary or the watch is fake. People jumped on the band wagon when Michael Barrett 'confessed' to having supposedly forged the diary. Anyone with half a brain have since realised (as the author did) that this could not possibly have been true. All the evidence he gave to support his 'confession' has been disproved.

Why people are so vehemently against the idea that James Maybrick could have been The Ripper I dont know. It seems strange that many would rather accuse men with a lot less evidence stacked against them, than seriously consider a man who could clearly have been guilty.

However, I do admit that the 1993 version of the 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' is a lot less detailed than the updated 1998 version. This makes sense as Shirley Harrison didnt have much time to research everything in depth prior to going to print. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, intrigued by the life of the man who may or may not have been the Whitechapel killer.

Diary aside, the life of James and Florence Maybrick was intriguing enough to warrant this book as worthy of reading. I would however recommend that you read the '98 updated version for a more comprehensive view.

"The Diary of Jack the Ripper" has the unenviable position of being one of the more recent entries into the "final solution" books on the Victorian serial killer. In all fairness to this book, I think nearly any book hitting this saturated genre is to be expected to be faced with criticism and skepticism.
What makes this book different from earlier books and books published since this one is this book purports to be the actual diary of James Maybrick, a cotton merchant and, according to this book, the most debated and elusive serial killer of all time.
Without debating on the authenticity of the diary or the book itself, which could be an entire tome in and of itself, I found the book to be an interesting read. Did I take every sentence as gospel truth? No. Reading it with a grain of salt was the best way to read it. Yes, it seemed like the book was written to work around the facts laid out in the diary - - but it was still an interesting twist on a century old mystery. And the story of James Maybrick, killer or not, was certainly interesting. Did he eventually overmedicate himself to death with arsenic? Did his wife Florie murder him? Or did she do as he asked, per the diary, and put him out of the misery of his life? Definitely a worthy story itself.
Will we ever truly know who the mysterious and depraved Jack the Ripper was? At this late date, probably not - - and so there is no way to say absolutely with certainty that any suspect put forth is undeniably a killer or undeniably innocent. But it keeps the mystery alive and keeps the Jack the Ripper market ripe for yet another worthy suspect . . .
Recommended for the true crime buff or Ripperologist.