Jack the Ripper Suspect – James Maybrick

Maybrick was a Liverpool cotton merchant, who died in 1889. After his death, his wife, Florence Maybrick, was convicted of his murder by poisoning in a sensational trial. More than a century after his death, James Maybrick was named as a suspect in the notorious Jack the Ripper murders, but most Ripperologists believe that the supporting evidence was hoaxed.

The Diary

In 1992, a document which claimed to be James Maybrick’s diary was presented, which claimed that he was Jack the Ripper. In the document, the author does not mention his own name, but offers enough hints and references consistent with Maybrick’s known life and habits that it is obvious readers are expected to believe it is James Maybrick.

The author of the document details alleged actions and crimes over a period of several months, taking credit for killing the five canonical Jack the Ripper victims, as well as two other murders which have to date not been identified.

The diary was first presented to the world by Michael Barrett, an unemployed scrap metal dealer, who claimed at the time that it had been given to him by a friend, Tony Devereux, in a pub. When this was queried, the story changed.

Barrett’s wife Ann, said that the diary had been in her family for as long as she could remember. She had asked Devereux to give it to her husband because he had literary aspirations and she thought he might write a book about it.

She had not wanted to tell him her family owned it because she thought he would ask her father about it and relations between the two men were strained.

The document was published as The Diary of Jack the Ripper in 1993 to great controversy. Most Ripperologists immediately dismissed the document as a hoax, though some were open to the possibility that it might be genuine, and many heated debates ensued.

Many tests were carried out on the ink used in the diary to establish its authenticity, however, they all seemed to produce contradictory results.

Document expert Kenneth W. Rendell examined the document. In Rendell’s opinion the handwriting style seemed more 20th century than Victorian. He also noted factual contradictions and handwriting inconsistencies.

The alleged diary had been Written in a genuine Victorian scrapbook, but with 20 pages at the front end torn out. Rendell also found this suspect as there was no logical explanation for the author to use such a book.

In January 1995, Michael Barrett swore in two separate affidavits that he was “the author of the Manuscript written by my wife Anne Barrett at my dictation which is known as The Jack the Ripper Diary.” Adding to the confusion, however, was Barrett’s solicitor’s subsequent repudiation of his affidavit, then Barrett’s withdrawal of the repudiation.

Some people, including Robert Smith, the present owner of the diary, claim it may be genuine. They argue that scientific dating methods have established that the book and the ink used to write it date from the nineteenth century, and that the symptoms of arsenic addiction, claimed to be described accurately in the book, are known to very few people.

They also claim that certain details of the murders provided in the diary were known only to police and the Ripper himself before the book’s publication; and that one of the original crime scene photographs shows the initials “F. M.” (Florence Maybrick) written on a wall behind the victim’s body in what appears to be blood.

The claim is that, Florence Maybrick’s infidelities were the motivation for the murders. These claims are dismissed by most experts.

The fact is that the details of the murders described in the diary are not accurate, and appear to have been collated from the various press reports from the time, because various errors and inaccuracies in the original press reports are replicated in the diary.

The Pocket Watch

In June 1993, a pocket watch was presented by Albert Johnson of Wallasey, Merseyside. The watch has “J. Maybrick” scratched on the inside cover, along with the words “I am Jack”, as well as the initials of the five canonical Jack the Ripper victims.

The watch was examined in 1993 by Dr Stephen Turgoose of the Corrosion and Protection Centre at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, using an electron microscope.

Turgoose stated:

“On the basis of the evidence, especially the order in which the markings were made, it is clear that the engravings pre-date the vast majority of superficial surface scratch marks. The wear apparent on the engravings, evidenced by the rounded edges of the markings and the ‘polishing out’ in places, would indicate a substantial age.

Whilst there is no evidence which would indicate a recent (last few years) origin, it must be emphasised that there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings. They could have been produced recently, and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multi-stage process; many of the features are only resolved by the scanning electron microscope, not being readily apparent in optical microscopy, and so, if they were of recent origin, the engraver would have to be aware of the potential evidence available from this technique, indicating a considerable skill and scientific awareness.”

In 1994, the watch was taken to the Interface Analysis Centre at Bristol University and studied by Dr Robert Wild using an electron microscope and Auger electron spectroscopy.

Dr Wild stated:

“Provided the watch has remained in a normal environment, it would seem likely that the engravings were at least several tens of years age…in my opinion it is unlikely that anyone would have sufficient expertise to implant aged, brass particles into the base of the engravings.”

These tests on the watch neither prove, nor disprove its authenticity, and the appearance of the watch, so soon after the appearance of the diary, raised great suspicion amongst Ripperologists.

Was James Maybrick Jack the Ripper? Highly unlikely. The evidence produced so far is highly flawed. In addition to that, James Maybrick was not local to the Whitechapel area of London, so is unlikely to have known his way around well enough to be able to commit the murders, then escape undetected so quickly each time. Also, he would have had to have disposed of bloody clothes each time or somehow explain how they got that way; he wasn’t a slaughterman or butcher.

Conclusion: James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper.