Casebook Forums

Casebook Forums (http://forum.casebook.org/index.php)
-   Maybrick, James (http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith (http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10410)

AdamNeilWood 08-01-2017 08:52 AM

25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith
 
1 Attachment(s)
25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS
by Robert Smith

2017 marks a quarter of a century since the document known as the diary of Jack the Ripper first came to the attention of the Ripper world.

This new book, by the diary's custodian and owner Robert Smith, has two main objectives: for the very first time to provide a same-size colour facsimile of the document, and to offer a record and an assessment of what has been discovered about the physical artefact and its contents since it emerged 25 years ago on 9th March 1992.

What do we know now that we didnít when Robert's company, Smith Gryphon Ltd, published "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" by Shirley Harrison on 4th October 1993?

If it was a hoax, why hasnít the proof of who forged it, and how and when, been forthcoming over the course of a quarter of a century?

It is time to make public why the diary team is confident it is a genuine Victorian document.

We can finally answer the following questions: When was it written? Where was it found? Why did it come to light on 9th March 1992? Where has it been for over 125 years? And we must ask one further and crucially linked question. Is Albert Johnsonís watch a genuine artefact from 1888?

Lurking behind all of these questions are two more: Was the diary written by a serial killer? If it was, was he Jack the Ripper?

These last two questions do not receive definitive answers in this book, but you will acquire plenty of information on them for you to form a sound opinion.

The diary is either a genuine document written circa 1888/89 or it is a modern fake. There is no other feasible option. If you want to make an objective assessment, you have to read every word in the diary with your full attention.

With the new full-size facsimile in colour to hand, you can observe in detail the words, the handwriting, the variation of ink flows and pressures, the blots and blemishes, and the shade of the ink, about which much misinformation has been disseminated.

Featuring chapters on the diary's provenence, the physical and scientific evidence, how the complex relationship between Michael and Anne Barrett impacted on and nearly wrecked the search for the diary's true provenance, and controversial topics such as "tin match box empty", 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER also includes a new annotated transcript, with extensive notes.

* Limited edition A4 hardback
* Full colour facsimile of the diary's 64 pages
* Annotated transcript
* Individually numbered and signed by the author
* Published on Monday 4th September 2017
* £25.00 plus P&P

Purchase your copy now at
http://mangobooks.co.uk/book.php?b=25

Henry Flower 08-01-2017 08:58 AM

"True facts" are perhaps my favourite sort of facts.

David Orsam 08-01-2017 10:15 AM

I just can't help but notice a flaw in the internal logic of that book summary.

On the one hand we are told that the question "When was it written?" will be finally answered.

We are also told that the diary team is "confident it is a genuine Victorian document".

Well if they've answered the question "When was it written?" they must know if it was a genuine Victorian document or not. Why are they only "confident" and not "certain"?

But if they HAVE answered the question and are confident that it is a genuine Victorian document then QED, unless they are holding paradoxical views, the diary must have been written before the death of Queen Victoria.

Then we are told:

"The diary is either a genuine document written circa 1888/89 or it is a modern fake. There is no other feasible option."

As they have already established that the document is Victorian then the answer must be that it was written circa 1888/89.

Given that they've established this, it must be regarded as a bit of a shame that the questions: "Was the diary written by a serial killer? If it was, was he Jack the Ripper?" don't receive definitive answers. So near yet so far, it seems.

jmenges 08-01-2017 10:40 AM

Wonderful news! Really looking forward to seeing, and owning, a reproduction of the diary, annotated, along with a summary of the research.

Another must have book from Mango.

Congratulations to the publisher and thanks for making this happen for us.

JM

Henry Flower 08-01-2017 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Orsam (Post 423744)
I just can't help but notice a flaw in the internal logic of that book summary.

On the one hand we are told that the question "When was it written?" will be finally answered.

We are also told that the diary team is "confident it is a genuine Victorian document".

Well if they've answered the question "When was it written?" they must know if it was a genuine Victorian document or not. Why are they only "confident" and not "certain"?

But if they HAVE answered the question and are confident that it is a genuine Victorian document then QED, unless they are holding paradoxical views, the diary must have been written before the death of Queen Victoria.

Then we are told:

"The diary is either a genuine document written circa 1888/89 or it is a modern fake. There is no other feasible option."

As they have already established that the document is Victorian then the answer must be that it was written circa 1888/89.

Given that they've established this, it must be regarded as a bit of a shame that the questions: "Was the diary written by a serial killer? If it was, was he Jack the Ripper?" don't receive definitive answers. So near yet so far, it seems.

Quite so, David.

Could the key be the definition of "document"? Few of us doubt that it's a Victorian item. But most of us feel it's been written in somewhat more recently.

No, that would be cheeky; "document" would refer to the contents, not an emptied out scrapbook...

Sam Flynn 08-01-2017 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry Flower (Post 423738)
"True facts" are perhaps my favourite sort of facts.

They're becoming a rarity, bearing in mind the prevalence of "fake nooz" these days :)

David Orsam 08-01-2017 11:29 AM

"If it was a hoax, why hasnít the proof of who forged it, and how and when, been forthcoming over the course of a quarter of a century?"

I don't find this question very helpful. The suggestion is that because no-one has been able to prove who forged the diary, and how and when they forged it, this is somehow a point in favour of the diary being genuine.

But, I mean, it's like saying that Jill Dando wasn't shot dead in 1999 because in 18 years no-one has been able to prove who murdered her and why. One can't always answer every question.

PaulB 08-01-2017 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Orsam (Post 423762)
"If it was a hoax, why hasnít the proof of who forged it, and how and when, been forthcoming over the course of a quarter of a century?"

I don't find this question very helpful. The suggestion is that because no-one has been able to prove who forged the diary, and how and when they forged it, this is somehow a point in favour of the diary being genuine.

But, I mean, it's like saying that Jill Dando wasn't shot dead in 1999 because in 18 years no-one has been able to prove who murdered her and why. One can't always answer every question.

I must say that I can't see that what you suggest is implied by that question. Isn't Adam simply saying (or perhaps implying) that the question is one among several that will receive a definitive answer in the book.

David Orsam 08-01-2017 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulB (Post 423777)
I must say that I can't see that what you suggest is implied by that question. Isn't Adam simply saying (or perhaps implying) that the question is one among several that will receive a definitive answer in the book.

I must say I didn't think it was Adam's words - I thought he was reproducing a summary of the book from the publishers.

I've seen the exact same question asked on these boards to suggest that because no-one has been able to prove who forged it (and when and how) that this strongly suggests the diary is genuine. I feel very confident that this is exactly what is being suggested here too. I'm fairly sure it's a rhetorical question.

richardh 08-01-2017 01:24 PM

Purchased :)


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.