Customer Reviews

True Face of Jack the Ripper

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I first read Shirley Harrisons 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' and was completely intrigued. Here for the first time was REAL evidence 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. 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, as much as I enjoyed her 1998 updated version of the 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper', I found this version to be a complete waste of my time. There was no real evidence to connect James Maybrick/The Ripper to the US killings as the cover of the book suggested. Instead I was treated to a template of her first paperback with a few revisions here and there. Utterly disappointing.

... these words will be here to warn you. This book has had millions of reprints. It gets a new title every year just so that all the 1 star reviews vanish over for a new term.

The hoaxer admitted forging the diary.

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.

Several years ago I read the author's tome on the Diary of Jack the Ripper, though not convinced, I was intrigued. I primarily read this one because it supposedly showed some connection between Maybrick and a series of murders in Texas around the same time. However, the Austin murders are barely mentioned in the book, and I really got tired of reading about the author's woes and problems with getting people to take her work seriously, etc. The book wasn't supposed to be about her, but about Maybrick. Though he is an interesting person, neither this book nor the controversial Diary of Jack the Ripper have convinced me he was Jack. Also, I noted several glaring errors in the text, including a statement that one of Maybrick's forebears had come to America in 1775 to fight in the Civil War. Last I knew, our Civil War was from 1861 to 1865. If that was wrong, who knows what else could be wrong. Whether the author is British, American or whatever, the dates of the Civil War should have been checked. I've read better, but with all reviews, this is just my opinion.

OK, here's the lowdown: The author takes an alleged diary of James Maybrick which claims he was Jack the Ripper, but the person who "found" it admitted to forging it. The contents of the diary contradict known facts of the case yet mimic errors that were introduced in Ripper books released shortly before the diary was announced. The contents of this diary clearly state that the Ripper had seven victims and seven victims only. There is even a supposed pocket watch of Maybrick's that has his name, his claim to being the Ripper, and the initials of these victims, which conveniently showed up for the first time at exactly the same time the diary did but from some other person. So that's all pretty ludicrous, but some people will believe anything I guess...

Now we have a new book from the same team who tried to push that forgery off on us... But here they claim, what do you know, that Maybrick also killed off a bunch of other people while running around the United States. But these supposed victims died in completely different ways then the Ripper victims did, and there is absolutely nothing that indicates either the Ripper or Maybrick had anything to do with them.

So if you accept the fact that the diary was forged, Maybrick is clearly innocent and this book is bunk. On the other hand, if you want to believe the diary is real, then it's pretty clear he only had seven victims and they were in England, and thus this book is still bunk.

No matter which way you go on the question of the authenticity of the alleged Ripper diary, this book is simply nonsense.

Don't waste your money.

David Forshaw doesn't know the half of it.

When it comes to the "unsolved mystery" that is Jack the Ripper, the Ripperology establishment doesn't just shift the goalposts for Maybrick advocates, it lines a brick wall between either end to make sure that nothing goes through.

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence - not the slightest - that Montague John Druitt slaughtered five or more Whitechapel prostitutes in 1888 - just the musings of a police official, long after the fact, who was not even on the case at the time. But one can be a Druittologist without risking one's standing in polite Ripper society.

There's no evidence that Francis Tumblety was the murderer either - he doesn't resemble any description of the Ripper and he might have been in custody when Mary Jane Kelley was murdered. The case against Tumblety is also based entirely on the long-after-the-fact musings of a retired police officer. But one can be a Tumbletonian without incurring the wrath of Mr. Harris.

There's no evidence that Joseph Kelly...but why stretch this out? Just mention Liverpool cotton broker James Maybrick (who bore an uncanny resemblance to one police drawing of the Ripper) and the Maybrick Diary and Watch (which have not failed any test designed to expose modern forgeries) and Ripperologists roll their eyes, foam at the mouth, and have nothing coherent to say - unless it's to demand a 19th century videotape of Maybrick killing prostitutes before even agreeing to consider him as a suspect.

Even without the videotape, the case against Maybrick is exceptionally strong, and a handful of Maybrickians have, for the past twelve years, struggled against the background noise to perfect the case against him - something not demanded for any other suspect.

Shirley Harrison, who first brought the world the Maybrick/Ripper Diary back in 1992, takes pen in hand again to discuss the trials and tribulations that she has undergone since then - and to review the case against Maybrick, as well as the leads that she has followed up on since 1992.

Much of this book seems to be written off of the same template as Harrision's first or borrows from Paul Feldman's book, though there are a few tantalizing clues that have developed since then which don't quite add up to a proverbial "smoking gun".

If the diary and watch themselves are not "smoking guns", then nothing else has been found which amounts to one - and yet...and yet...Ms. Harrison finds nuggets (American rumors of a Ripper diary circulating in St. Louis in 1888, British rumors of a diary written by Mrs. Maybrick in 1889, first revealed by Feldman, memoranda of deceased correspondents who knew or suspected a Maybrick/Ripper connection before the publication of Ms. Harrison's book, etc.) which make the "smoking gun" seem...ever...so...close. Actually, along this line, while Ms. Harrison borrows liberally from Paul Feldman at times, she ignores interviews that he conducted with living Maybrick descendants that really do suggest that their elders carried a terrible family secret to their graves.

And she does allow herself to get sidetracked. In reviewing the evidence against Maybrick - scientific and psychological - she would have done better to leave Sir Jim's astrological reading out of it. That's only going to provide more fodder for her critics to chew on.

It's actually quite amazing that Ms. Harrison, out of an abundance of caution, downplays some of the more intriguing evidence, such as the "Diego Laurenz" letter to the Liverpool Echo, while displaying no caution at all in wasting time and paper on astrological indicators.

Most disappointing of all is that the book does not come close to living up to its promise to incriminate Maybrick as having committed a number of serial murders in Austin, Texas in 1884-5. The jacket cover has the temerity to promise to place Maybrick "at the scene" of these eight murders, which occurred in the space of about a year.

This promise isn't fulfilled, and Maybrick's involvement in the eight Austin murders is left open as just one more tantalizing possibility. The trouble is that the Maybrick Diary itself, (and again, it was Ms. Harrison who introduced us to it) does not even remotely hint that its author committed ANY earlier murders ANYWHERE.

To the contrary, the Diary's author seems to treat serial murder as a brand new game. There is a reference in the Diary to one or two murders in Manchester, England in 1888 that are not regarded as part of the Ripper canon, and the earlier Manchester murder is described as Maybrick's "first". If the diary is genuine, its language downplays the notion of any Maybrick/Ripper murders occurring before March 1888.

I think that Ms. Harrison is trying a little too hard to gild the Maybrick lily here. I also think that the best part of the book might be the postscript written by Liverpool psychology professor David Canter.

Professor Canter doesn't unreservedly endorse the diary as a genuine historical document, but he does provide a wonderfully clever critique of just how accurate it is, how true it rings, and how perfect a forgery it would have to be. At one point, he wonders mischievously what in the world the genius who is supposed to have "forged" it has to gain by remaining silent at this late date.

Professor Canter might well turn out to be the Maybrickian's answer to Melvin Harris - only wittier and more genial. His writing provides a reminder that when the Diary is removed from the clutches of hysterical Ripperologists screaming "Fake!" and shown to students of the human condition, such as psychologists and lawyers, the skepticism largely vanishes and it is regarded as one more intriguing blueprint of that condition.

Surely, as the years go by, more of these students will continue to review this fascinating document, and surely this is one more reason to believe that posterity is on the side of the Maybrickians. Tempus Omnia Revelat!

Only rarely do we get to read books that are as good as this one. Shirley Harrison has solved the mystery of Jack the Ripper's identity, and explains everything in a wonderfully readable style. I could not put the book down. It reads like an incredible mystery novel/historical detective thriller/tragic love story. Highly recommended!