Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by caz 42 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - by MrBarnett 1 hour and 11 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by caz 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - by Robert 2 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Spitfire 3 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by caz 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (16 posts)
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - (6 posts)
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - (6 posts)
Maybrick, James: Mike Barrett Interview - September 1995 - (4 posts)
Maybrick, James: A Very Inky Question - (4 posts)
Maybrick, James: Anne Graham Interview - October 1995 - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-16-2018, 11:37 AM
DirectorDave DirectorDave is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: UK.
Posts: 310
Default

We all agree my handwriting looks like we have multiple personality disorder.
__________________
My opinion is all I have to offer here,

Dave.

Smilies are canned laughter.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-16-2018, 11:51 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,782
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Yes, thank you Herlock, your view accords with my own.

This thread isn't going to be considering the reason for the differences, it's just important to note they are there. We are going to be comparing some of Anne Barrett's handwriting with some of the handwriting in the diary and it's important to establish that it's pretty much impossible for any single form of handwriting to match everything written in the Diary given the internal differences within that document.

As we have one True Believer in Iconoclast and as your view on the Diary, Herlock, is, I hope it's fair to say, perhaps more undecided one way or the other, it might be nice to have an out an out sceptic participating in this exercise, just for balance - so one more volunteer would be nice.

Volunteering for this exercise, incidentally, is not like volunteering for a David Copperfield stage show. No-one will get hurt!
Im glad to hear that your not sharpening up the knives and ironing the blindfold then.

For the record David id say that my opinion on the diary is that it’s overwhelmingly likely to be a forgery but i accept the slight possibility that it may not be. Of the arguments against i believe that your ‘one off instance’ is by far the likeliest refuting point. That said i have made no real study of the subject but i do like to play a bit of ‘devil’s advocate’ occaisionally.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-16-2018, 12:09 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 804
Default

I don't have time for a deep dive on this one just yet, but it doesn't take a genius to spot that many words on Page 1 of the journal (we can consider the other 60+ in due course, I'm sure) are superficially similar (which would explain why the issue has not - to my knowledge - been raised before) but which are, in truth, quite alarmingly different in structure, and in ways which you would just not predict from a hoaxer attempting to hide their own hand or at least not reveal that there is fair reason to question the hand which wrote the text; or indeed from someone actually writing it 'for real'. It really doesn't make any sense.

Obviously I concur with the 'I's, the 'will's, and the 'whore's (I don't think they are in much debate) but I am particularly further struck by the excellent example of a repeated 'that' (bottom of the first paragraph) where the constituents are extraordinarily dissimilar despite being - in written terms - straight after one another (they are actually separated by a line break). I cannot imagine why two consecutive words should be so different despite being the same.

Generally speaking, the text looks consistent. There are flourishes (like the long crossed-Ts) which repeat themselves fairly predictably, and the majority of the words appear (at least superficially) to be in the same hand (as I said above), and yet there are these rather bizarre distortions of style which even the most erratic of writers would surely find surprising in their own hand?

It's an interesting topic, and one which I'll have to come back to.
__________________
Iconoclast
Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

Last edited by Iconoclast : 05-16-2018 at 12:18 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-16-2018, 12:20 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
I don't have time for a deep dive on this one just yet, but it doesn't take a genius to spot that many words on Page 1 of the journal (we can consider the other 60+ in due course, I'm sure) are superficially similar (which would explain why the issue has not - to my knowledge - been raised before) but which are, in truth, quite alarmingly different in structure, and in ways which you would just not predict from a hoaxer attempting to hide their own hand or at least not reveal that there is fair reason to question the hand which wrote the text. It really doesn't make any sense.
Thank you Iconoclast but I want to just repeat what I am trying to achieve here which might save you a lot of work.

I'm not attempting to argue that there is anything problematic about there being internal inconsistencies in the handwriting in the Diary. In other words, I am in no way going to be saying that because "whore" is written differently on one line compared to another that this means the Diary is a fake or that there is any kind of conclusion that can be drawn from such differences.

So you don't need to be "alarmed" by any handwriting differences. That's not the point of the exercise at all.

The reason I am trying to achieve a consensus on this point is solely so that when I post some examples of Anne's handwriting which looks similar to some words or characters in the Diary, the response is not "Aha, it may look similar to something on page 3 but it's completely different to what is on page 7".

In other words, it's important that everyone recognises that just because a certain individual's normal handwriting is different from the handwriting in parts of the Diary, this doesn't by itself rule them out of being the author.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-16-2018, 12:24 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Thank you Iconoclast but I want to just repeat what I am trying to achieve here which might save you a lot of work.

I'm not attempting to argue that there is anything problematic about there being internal inconsistencies in the handwriting in the Diary. In other words, I am in no way going to be saying that because "whore" is written differently on one line compared to another that this means the Diary is a fake or that there is any kind of conclusion that can be drawn from such differences.

So you don't need to be "alarmed" by any handwriting differences. That's not the point of the exercise at all.

The reason I am trying to achieve a consensus on this point is solely so that when I post some examples of Anne's handwriting which looks similar to some words or characters in the Diary, the response is not "Aha, it may look similar to something on page 3 but it's completely different to what is on page 7".

In other words, it's important that everyone recognises that just because a certain individual's normal handwriting is different from the handwriting in parts of the Diary, this doesn't by itself rule them out of being the author.
And your point is duly noted and had been understood, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is in itself a particularly unexpected phenomenon. I am less alarmed about its implications for the journal and more alarmed for the implications for the human brain - how it can write such inconsistencies (in consecutive words, for goodness sake!) in the first place, and evade detection for so long in the second place.
__________________
Iconoclast
Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-16-2018, 12:28 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
And your point is duly noted and had been understood, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is in itself a particularly unexpected phenomenon. I am less alarmed about its implications for the journal and more alarmed for the implications for the human brain - how it can write such inconsistencies (in consecutive words, for goodness sake!) in the first place, and evade detection for so long in the second place.
Well we can happily leave the first question for the handwriting experts at another time. The second question is easily answered in that it is only now that I have had a close look at the handwriting. [I'm only joking!!!!!]

This thread is only going to be about spotting similarities between Anne's handwriting and the handwriting (at least at certain times) of the author of the Diary.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-16-2018, 11:01 PM
Pcdunn Pcdunn is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,626
Default

Huh, very interesting. I've been trying for some time to determine if the handwriting seen in the diary resembled that of either of the Barretts, and came away with the vague idea that it doesn't match anyone's writing, including Maybrick's.

Now, at last, there is a chance to see if there is a partial resemblance! Very good, and I will check your observations against my copy of the Diary. Thank you.
__________________
Pat D.
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-17-2018, 06:15 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,131
Default

Hi David,

Check out the capital A's on the first page. Second paragraph, line 4, we get a modern looking capital A for 'And why not...' [are we looking at Barry Norman?? ], then another one beginning the final paragraph: 'As usual my hands are cold...'. But sandwiched in between, just two lines down from the first example, we get a very different, old-fashioned capital A [which I can't reproduce here, but it looks more like a capital G so I'll go with that] for: 'Gll who sell their dirty wares...'.

Now this seems rather odd to me unless, as with the handwriting not remotely resembling Maybrick's, our hoaxer [for I have no doubt we are dealing with one, it's just the who, when and why we disagree about] just didn't give two hoots.

We shall see in due course, but I'd have thought someone like Anne, who'd have seriously needed the skill to disguise her own hand very well, while trying to maintain the overall consistency and fluidity of someone writing naturally, would also have taken care over such details, or made it far easier on herself by not producing a whacking 63 pages of writing with so much completely avoidable repetition. That would have been asking for trouble.

Love,

Persona Non Grata
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-17-2018, 09:45 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is online now
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 262
Default

Caz. None of my business, really, but I'd be curious to know why Keith Skinner and Anne Graham appear to have had a 'falling out.' From several posts by Die Hard Diary supporters on these message boards, I think they are wondering the same thing. The impression we used to get back around 2000-2002 (and perhaps we were all misinterpreting the situation) is that they were really quite chummy and Keith was even helping Anne research a book on 'baby farming.' He certainly wrote the forward to her book on Florence Maybrick. Fast forward 14 or 16 years and they haven't spoken in years and--by implication--Keith is now entirely willing to entertain the idea that Anne was lying through her teeth (elaborately and repeatedly) about having seen the Diary in the 1960s. It's a curious state of affairs. You can't blame people for wondering.

And with Anne not talking, and having not talked for a decade, I think we have come to the end of the line. There will be no video of the culprits in action, and no deathbed confession, and so what we now see is pretty much all we will ever get. And thus the Diary will forever remain a questioned document under a cloud of suspicion, and no self-respecting historian will touch it with a ten foot pole as 'source material.'

Last edited by rjpalmer : 05-17-2018 at 09:50 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-17-2018, 10:14 AM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,154
Default

What I don't understand is why Scotland Yard supposedly investigated a possible Diary forgery after it first emerged, but then the investigation stopped without answers. They interviewed the electricians who worked in the house, Anne Graham, etc. They must have concluded that Anne Graham had no involvement or they could go no further with what she told them.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.