NOTE: EXISTENCE OF THE DIARY IS HOTLY DISPUTED. TAKING NO POSITION FOR OR AGAINST, WE SIMPLY PROVIDE OUR SITE VISITORS WITH EVIDENCE ABOUT IT.
But that is not the end of this story. In 1993, stunning events caused many people to believe that James Maybrick was actually the infamous murderer of Whitechapel, "Jack the Ripper." What is the evidence for this surprising development?
A diary, purportedly written by James Maybrick, gives graphic descriptions of the murders committed by Jack the Ripper. Some of the details could only have been known by the actual murderer.
A pocket watch, like the gold watch James Maybrick always wore, has been discovered. A Liverpool grandfather had purchased the antique watch as an investment for his granddaughter. The watch had superficial scratches on the inside cover which could not be read without the help of a microscope. Using a microscope, the owner could read a signature: "J. Maybrick." At the time, the signature of James Maybrick meant nothing to the owner. Looking further with the microscope, the owner read the words
I am Jack
written across the center of the cover. Scratched around the edge were the initials of the victims of Jack the Ripper.
The mistress of James Maybrick was known to have lived in the Whitechapel section of London for a number of years. All of the known Ripper murder victims lived in the Whitechapel area.
An 1888 police drawing of the Ripper, based on eye witness reports, looks strikingly like an actual photograph of a hatless James Maybrick.
While there is some evidence the diary may be authentic (not a hoax); the watch actually belonged to Maybrick (the scratches were made decades ago); the police drawing is actually Maybrick (compare the drawings yourself); and James Maybrick knew the Whitechapel section of London (from his many visits to his mistress), most of the world's leading "Ripperologists" say the diary is a fraud.
Using the available evidence, let's determine whether James Maybrick had additional secrets never revealed to Florie. Let's examine whether Maybrick had an even darker side that led to brutal murders. Let's test whether the evidence supports the assertion that James Maybrick, dead in the spring of 1889 from a longtime arsenic addiction, caused the terror in London's East End between August and November, 1888.
The beginning of the diary is undated. It seems to start mid-thought:
what they have in store for them they would stop this instant. But do I desire that? my answer is no. They will suffer just as I. I will see to that...I long for peace of mind but I sincerely believe that that will not come until I have sought my revenge on the whore and the whore master.
Before he terrorized Whitechapel, however, the writer tested "his stomach for murder" in Manchester, a town not far from Liverpool. Here's what the diary says about the murder in Manchester:My dear God my mind is in a fog. The whore is now with her maker and he is welcome to her ... Did not know if I have the courage to go back to my original idea. Manchester was cold and damp...
No murder in Manchester is associated with Jack the Ripper. The contemporary headlines in London's papers, and all the stories about the Ripper, focus on the horrific crimes in Whitechapel. The diary begins the story of those infamous crimes soon after the Manchester incident.