When I was at university, my final year dissertation was a
psychoanalysis of a text which had been sensationalised as ‘The Diary of Jack
the Ripper’. My project tutor advised me to refer to it in my report as the
diary of James Maybrick - who was the purported author. Years later I am even
more grateful for the advice as, after further consideration, I have come to
the conclusion that - while I do believe that James Maybrick wrote the diary -
I don’t believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
There are some similarities between Maybrick and the Ripper which would
explain his submission as a possible culprit. For example, he was known to keep
a mistress in London – specifically in
the Whitechapel area – who he visited on occasion whenever his business took
him to London which means that he would have been familiar with the locality
and its news and happenings.
Following his wife’s perceived betrayal after she indulged in an affair
with a local businessman, Alfred Brierley, his behaviour is reported by those
close to him to have displayed signs of intense indignation and outrage –
possibly augmented by his steadily increasing dependence on arsenic which
Maybrick had become addicted to following treatment for malaria. This could
have led to an elevated sense of injustice, which could theoretically be a
motive for the murders.
The final similarity comes from looking at certain examples from a
collection of contemporary documents known as the ‘Letters from Hell’. When
compared with the syntax and handwriting of the diary it becomes clear that
some of them bear a striking resemblance particularly evident in the use of the
phrase ‘ha ha’ which is often used in the diary. All of which suggests a link
between Maybrick and the Ripper.
Yet none of these provides conclusive evidence that Maybrick was the
culprit.
Firstly, he is hardly likely to have been alone in having business or a
mistress in London and the fact that he did is hardly definitive proof that he
was indeed the killer. He is also
unlikely to have been the only cuckold to seek a sense of retribution on his
supposed offender and to have done so without choosing to exert this ire on
random strangers. Also due to the volume of Letters from Hell received during
the Ripper’s reign of terror it is clear that he was not the only perpetrator
of these either.
There are also discrepancies between the diary and what is now known of
the facts of the case such as recent discussion over the accuracy of including
Liz Stride – the third canonical victim – in the list and the fact that the
diary mentions two murders which are not linked with nor attributed to Jack the
Ripper.
Also, it must considered that his abuse of the drug arsenic would have
seriously impacted both his mental and physical capabilities eventually to the
point where it would have to be questioned whether he would have been able to
commit the crimes.
Instead, what I believe is that James Maybrick thought he was the
Ripper and completed a diary to this end or in this disturbed state of mind.
This would explain the similarity between the diary and some of the Letters
from Hell as being sent by someone who believed or who had convinced themselves
that they were the culprit (as in a False Confession) or even - out of a sense
of misogyny from his perceived sense of betrayal - wanted to be the Ripper.
This theory would also tie in nicely with other factors including explaining
his possible mistakes regarding specific facts of the case and the debilitating
effects of his continuing arsenic abuse which can include headaches, vomiting,
stomach pains, convulsions and delirium or confusion which are, in fact,
mentioned in the diary.
There is of course the issue of the diary itself to consider which has
at various times since its discovery been either lauded as genuine or condemned
as a hoax. There are many factors which supposedly support either side of the
argument.
For example, those who detract the diary as a fake focus for the most
part on the supposed questionable authenticity of the ink and the paper, which
many believe are not contemporary with the killings or even with the Victorian
period. This is, however, not entirely true as it has been subsequently proven
that both were around at the time although perhaps not in as much abundance or
as popularly or commonly used as other types of the same materials. However,
this cannot consequently conclusively prove the diary to be a fake.
Another cause for concern is the missing pages at the front of the
diary which appear to have been torn out and which doubters attribute to its
forger removing previous ‘modern’ entries before creating the fake. However the
missing pages do not prove this supposition, nor do they imply that Maybrick
was not the author as they could just as easily be the actions of a disturbed
individual who is seeking to eradicate his past (entries) as the effects of his
drug abuse take hold or perhaps seeking to disassociate his current life from
events of his past after the infidelity of his wife is revealed and his world –
as he sees it – changes. It could also
be said to fit with Maybrick’s gradual decline in health.
The final nail in the coffin of authenticity for the diary is
supposedly that its finder - Michael Barrett - later retracted his affirmation
that the diary was Jack the Ripper’s or even James Maybrick’s and ‘confessed’
to having created it himself. Aside from the issue of whether he was capable of
doing such a thing, at the time of this statement the effects of the stress
caused by being the focus of attention as owner and finder of such a remarkable
and questionable diary had begun to take their toll on him and would eventually
lead to his suffering a nervous breakdown. Any statement made under such
conditions or in this state would have to be viewed as questionable and
consequently do not disprove the diary’s identity or make his original statement any less plausible.
He was also alone in making the retraction as his wife continued to
uphold the claim as to its identity and Barrett would himself at a later date
retract his repudiation of the diary.
In support of the authenticity of the diary you have the fact that,
unlike what is commonly believed, the ink and paper used were contemporary for
the time – which disproves any doubts based on this fact.
Also, if one were to make a fake, why would one choose Maybrick as the
focus of the diary? Maybrick was an insignificant Liverpudlian businessman with
no previous link to Jack the Ripper or the Whitechapel murders and is surely
not the most obvious target for a fake. Other more notorious or notable
suspects could just as easily have been selected - such as Montague John Druitt
or Frances Tumblety - so why pick Maybrick unless of course he wasn’t chosen to
be the author but was in fact the actual author.
Finally, there are the previously mentioned similarities between the
syntax and handwriting in the diary and certain samples of the letters from
Hell. All of which to me suggests that the diary is a genuine Victorian
artefact and that Maybrick is correctly credited as its author.
However, as I say I believe the diary is Maybrick’s but not the
Ripper’s as, personally, when looking for the true culprit in the Jack the
Ripper crimes, I think more attention should be paid to the artefact which is
referred to as the Lusk letter. This letter was sent to the head of the
Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, George Lusk, and was famously accompanied a
piece of human kidney which supposedly belonged to Catherine Eddowes - the
Ripper’s fourth victim.
Analysis of the kidney showed that its owner had suffered from Bright’s
Disease - which Catherine Eddowes was known to have had – and, in addition to
this, the length of renal artery still attached to the kidney matched the
length that was missing from Catherine Eddowes’ body. This for me provides
conclusive proof that the kidney was indeed hers and consequently implies that
the sender must have been the killer.
Also, as the syntax and the handwriting of the letter do not match
either the diary or the letters containing the phrase ‘ha ha’, I think this
shows that James Maybrick did not write them and consequently cannot have been
the killer.
Sadly, without the possibility of handwriting comparison with the Lusk
letter and that of possible suspects, and with so many facts and evidence
concealed or lost in the mists of time, it is unlikely that the real identity
of Jack the Ripper will ever be established or comprehensively proven. But
maybe by eliminating false suspects we can take a step closer to a possible
conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment