'Ripper diary' taps rich vein in controversy: Mary Braid investigates the latest chapter in a long-running murder mystery

THE PACKED press launch was tinged with theatre. A security man, in requisite navy blue pullover, stood guard over a large hard-back diary and an 18-carat gold pocket watch which, it was claimed, finally exposed the identity of one of Britain's first serial killers.

But the sticker hastily attached to the cover of the Diary of Jack the Ripper said it all: 'Is it Genuine? Read the evidence, then judge for yourself' it advised readers. It obscured a bolder original subtitle boasting 'discovery, investigation and authentication'.

Shirley Harrison's book argues that Jack the Ripper, murderer of five prostitutes in London's East End at the turn of the century, was in fact James Maybrick, an outwardly respectable Liverpool cotton merchant who frequented brothels and was addicted to arsenic and strychnine. Her assertion is based on a diary, owned by a former Liverpool scrap merchant, in which Mr Maybrick allegedly confessed to the crimes.

The watch, complete with scratched initials of the five Ripper victims, was separately, and rather timely, discovered last year in Liverpool, soon after the diary came to light.

Even as Robert Smith, managing director of publishing house Smith Gryphon and Ms Harrison's husband, was confidently predicting that the 'genuine' diary would stand up to any amount of 'critical battering', Scotland Yard was investigating claims by the Sunday Times that it was an elaborate hoax which, with a proposed print run of 250,000, would net more than pounds 4m in the worldwide sale of television and newspaper rights.

Mr Smith refused to be drawn on how much Smith Gryphon had invested in the book's publication, but said the initial print run was 100,000.

Newspapers have had no trouble finding experts to cast doubt on the diary.

The most fundamental criticism is that the handwriting in the diary does not match that in Mr Maybrick's will. Ripperologists invited to yesterday's event were largely agnostic or outright disbelievers. While Paul Begg, Ripper historian and author, said he had been on the fence so long about the diary that he had piles, Melvyn Harris was highly sceptical. About to publish his third book on the Ripper, he insisted that Ms Harrison's book offered no proof of the diary's authenticity.

Brian Maybrick, a distant relative of James's, had no feelings about the diary's authenticity. But surely its discovery had come as a shock? Until now, his grandfather's cousin had been remembered as a famous victim, having been poisoned by his wife. 'No self-respecting family would look for this relationship,' he conceded.

Mike Barrett, 41, the owner who recently suffered a stroke, said the diary, given to him by a friend before his death, had brought nothing but trouble.

'I believe it is the diary of Jack the Ripper, but it has totally stressed me out. I have lost three stones. It is hard not to take being called a liar personally.' He said he had yet to make a penny from his find.

After yesterday's show, the diary was returned to a bank vault, but Mr Barrett hopes it will eventually go on public display in Liverpool.

Leading article, page 17

(Photograph omitted)