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:
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by etenguy 1 hour and 6 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by etenguy 1 hour and 17 minutes ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by Steadmund Brand 1 hour and 21 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Spitfire 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 6 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (17 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (11 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (11 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - (5 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - (2 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
  #1  
Old 08-01-2017, 08:52 AM
AdamNeilWood AdamNeilWood is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 269
Default 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

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
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-01-2017, 08:58 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,069
Default

"True facts" are perhaps my favourite sort of facts.
__________________
What should I do at Rome? I have not learnt
The art of lying


Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis - Satire III
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-01-2017, 10:15 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

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.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-01-2017, 10:40 AM
jmenges jmenges is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,231
Default

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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-01-2017, 11:08 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
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...
__________________
What should I do at Rome? I have not learnt
The art of lying


Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis - Satire III
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-06-2017, 09:26 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
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.
Yeah, the fact that anyone can write something as obvious as: it's either real or it isn't, there's no other answer beyond that!

Well, erm...No ****, Sherlock.

Glad to see that the Maybrick case has now been made much more clear, in that we've gotten down to the bare bones of it either being real or fake...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-01-2017, 11:28 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,867
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
"True facts" are perhaps my favourite sort of facts.
They're becoming a rarity, bearing in mind the prevalence of "fake nooz" these days
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, GŲtzendšmmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-01-2017, 11:29 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

"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.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-01-2017, 12:11 PM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
"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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-01-2017, 12:17 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
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.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
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 08:23 AM.


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