Maybrick..where are we?

[spyglass]

Before you all yawn, I have been out of the loop for a while and only just got back into JTR, but could someone up date me on where we stand with the diary and the watch, has it yet been proved to be faked ,or are investigations still on going?

many thanks.

[Addy]

Hi,

As far as I know nothing has defenitely been proven one way or the other. There is still a lot of debate going on.

Greetings,

Addy

[Jason]

Until it is proven without doubt to be a forgery ( and beyond all reasonable doubt at that ) it will be the JTR equivalent of the Kennedy Assassination alternatives ie Mafia, CIA ....i seriously believe that. Whether we as individuals consider it to be genuine is irrelevant, from an overall perspective its presence is a pretty big shadow in the background of seemingly more likely and logical suspects....amazing thing is that 17 years later it still has not been proven to be either real or fake...especially with improvements in scientific techniques....and whether we like it or not that in itself deserves to be reckoned with.

[DVV]

The diary is a genuine fake and the watch was Astrakhan Man's.
Still the goldchain is missing.
As is Mary's heart.

Amitiés all,
David

[Pontius2000]

Until it is proven without doubt to be a forgery ( and beyond all reasonable doubt at that ) it will be the JTR equivalent of the Kennedy Assassination alternatives ie Mafia, CIA

It has already been definitively proven to be a fake. whether or not YOU choose to accept that is irrelevant.

[corey123]

Pontius,

I will agree that it is a fake, but you have no proof to it being a modern forgery.

Nor do you have proof that it wasn't written by Jack the Ripper or someone in contact with him.

Weather you agree to what I say is irrelevant.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I am staying out of this one. Maybrick, Diary, Watch, who, what, when, where, why, is, isn't, may be, may not be..... etc..thats for others to argue about. My only comment is the following..
I didn't write it. Not guilty m'lud.

best wishes

[Pontius2000]

Pontius,

I will agree that it is a fake, but you have no proof to it being a modern forgery.

Nor do you have proof that it wasn't written by Jack the Ripper or someone in contact with him.

Weather you agree to what I say is irrelevant.

I have absolute proof it's a fake. the hoaxer ADMITTED that he wrote it. oh wait, he "recanted" his confession through an attorney. lol.

I thought it added flavor when "Jack the Ripper" refers in the diary to a pub that didn't even exist at the time of the murders. yeah, there's a snowball's chance in hell that it's real.

the guy goes undetected for 100+ years. all the while, there's been a diary and a watch that he put the victims' initials on. get real.

[quasar]

Pontius 2000,

I agree that it is most likely a fake, I am 90% sure - but that does not mean definate.Nothing M.Barrett sais can be trusted at all, so it is also a 90% certainty that he did not write it.It is possable he was played, and inturn,he has played the public.

As for the pub, I can only go with what I have read. The Diarist did not mention anything about the pub being in Liverpool its'self.And apparently there were other drinking places in England at the time called Poste House.So that argument draws into a cul-de-sac.

What irritates me is that technology today, 2010, is vastly superior than it was 17 years ago.I dont know why people do not pool thier money together and get it tested. I would contribute some money to the cause.

Thanks, Q.

[Uncle Jack]

The diary is fake - the sooner that is realised the better. Too many years have been wasted researching this rubbish. Any Maybrick connection to the Ripper should be severed once and for all.

James Maybrick, or any of his family, were not Jack the Ripper!

[caz]

Too many years have been wasted researching this rubbish. Any Maybrick connection to the Ripper should be severed once and for all.

Hi Uncle Jack,

I'd be happy for those connections to be severed. Unless or until the diary is dated, there should be no assumption that its author knew, thought they knew, or thought it was even possible that Maybrick committed the Whitechapel murders. We don't even know if the diary was a serious attempt to set him up for them - or just a rather sick joke. But you don't have to waste a second researching it, do you? If others want to do so, that's surely their affair.

I have absolute proof it's a fake. the hoaxer ADMITTED that he wrote it. oh wait, he "recanted" his confession through an attorney. lol.

I thought it added flavor when "Jack the Ripper" refers in the diary to a pub that didn't even exist at the time of the murders.

Hi Pontius,

I have absolute, definitive proof that I murdered six people. I ADMIT it here and now. Oh wait, my solicitor just advised me to "recant" my confession because I've had one too many gin and tonics and I like winding up the gullible - hic lol.

So precisely which pub is referred to in the diary and how do you know? Where is your definitive proof that nobody in 1888 was using the nickname Poste House for any old inn?

Why could it not be the old pub within spitting distance of Maybrick's first family home, for example, which was called the Post Office Tavern in 1888? One recent nickname for it was "the HQ". Do you know what nicknames were used for it back in 1888?

No, thought not.

What irritates me is that technology today, 2010, is vastly superior than it was 17 years ago.I dont know why people do not pool thier money together and get it tested. I would contribute some money to the cause.

Thanks, Q.

Hi quasar,

Robert Smith, the current owner of the diary, restated on Saturday at the WS1888 meeting that he had been investigating whether the latest technology could help him date when the ink actually met the paper and had, as usual, drawn a blank. So it could be a waste of people's money testing the diary unless the results could show definitively that it could not have been written before a certain date.

At present, the best ink-on-paper dating we have from professional scientists [the Rendell Team in the US, who were commissioned in 1993 to expose the document as modern, ie post-1987] is "prior to 1970". Rendell himself then went on to take Mike Barrett's 1994 confession seriously (I despair - I really do ).

So the scientific verdict effectively became a nonsensical: "created before 1970 by Mike Barrett circa 1989".

Incidentally, Robert also reminded the audience on Saturday that there was a lot of lovely lolly on the table for the first person to come forward with proof of their own or anyone else's involvement in the diary's creation. It's now nearly twenty years since the thing emerged, the police investigated back in the day, found nothing incriminating against anyone 'in the loop' and gave up interest. The ink in the diary hasn't altered in the slightest in appearance and nobody wants to say how it was done.

Diary experts - we are up to our eyes in diary experts.

And not one of them knows a sausage when it comes down to it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pontius2000]

The diary is fake - the sooner that is realised the better. Too many years have been wasted researching this rubbish. Any Maybrick connection to the Ripper should be severed once and for all.

James Maybrick, or any of his family, were not Jack the Ripper!

This is absolutely correct. the time and effort that's been wasted on this diary nonsense just invites other hoaxes. I guarantee you that in a few years, we'll be seeing "private papers" from Abberline, Swanson, Anderson, or McNaghton naming the Ripper. and it will be because this bogus diary was given some degree of credibility.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Exactly how much lovely lolly is up for grabs?

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Incidentally, Robert also reminded the audience on Saturday that there was a lot of lovely lolly on the table for the first person to come forward with proof of their own or anyone else's involvement in the diary's creation.

One of the more ironic aspects of this is that Robert Smith claims to be the legal owner of copyright in the diary, that right supposedly having been conveyed to him by Mike Barrett - which, of course, could only be the case if the authorship of the diary were known!

[DirectorDave]

We are in a place where people are trying to make as much money as possible.

The people involved in the "Discovery" of this document have lied......that is an undisputable fact. The provenance is so poor that the only way to take this document seriously would be for the people involved in it to be above reproach.....they are not. A smokescreen has now descended over the diary, while the owners try to eek out this whole charade to keep people interested.

I don't care about the "Post House" or any scientific tests......I am looking at the behaviour of people involved and human nature. At the time of the murders hundreds of people wrote fictitious letters to the press and this document is just an extension of that.

This whole thing has been created by greedy, dishonest people who obviously have no real interest in progressing the Jack the Ripper case....they are just interested in lining their pockets.

The diary is the modern-day equivalent of the medium's parlour....smoke and mirrors....preying on people desperate for answers.

I for one am not so desperate as to ignore common sense and make a leap of faith to ever consider this piece of nonsense to be anything other than fake.