Name the Name with a short answer why please :D

[DJA]

I'll write slower,if that helps

[caz]

Hi Caz.

There only ever was one well respected researcher who had intimate knowledge of both Maybrick & Jack the Ripper, at the time the 'Diary' surfaced, it's just that without proof it wouldn't be acceptable for me to name him. Though today it shouldn't be difficult for anyone to identify the name themselves. There's only one.

The book was an intentional fabrication right from the start, in my view.

Would you say, Jon, that the author always intended to remain anonymous, and had no desire to try and market their own work for fame or fortune?

Was it done out of mischief, do you suppose, or just to see how effectively these two famous cases from consecutive years could be combined in one literary exercise?

I did wonder if it was ever meant for public scrutiny, as there was no attempt to copy Maybrick's known handwriting. But then there is the signature, expertly copied and scratched in the damned watch, that continues to defy a credible explanation. And why on earth would your respected researcher plant either artefact in the Maybrick home, unless mischief was indeed the motive?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Now that’s a theory and half.

I think I know to whom you may infer. You think he fabricated the whole thing, I would ask why? If he is as respected as I think him to be, would that not simply ruin his reputation as a well respected researcher?

It would be the death knell of his career. A career where he has always aimed to remain impartial wherever possible.

I personally struggle greatly with this one.

I seriously struggle with who Jon has in mind!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I understand your position. The fact remains, there only ever was one person (one author) with more than enough inside knowledge of both subjects to have been the principal source behind the deception.
Every time a fraud is uncovered, whether it be a work of art, a book, or an ancient antique, invariably we find a range of reasons why they did it. It isn't always for money, quite often it is for the challenge, which may not make sense to some, but it doesn't have to.
If the creator never does make money or receive any kind of material benefit they have thee best alibi - "It wasn't me, had no reason to do it" - which is precisely your position, which is also what the creator is relying on.

To simply have deceived some of the best minds in the world can be a huge gratification for some.

Not sure we're talking about the same subject now, Jon!

Was the author horrified or relieved when the diary found its way to Mike "Bongo" Barrett?? Was this by accident or design?

I'm thinking your author is no longer with us, am I right?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It was my sanity I had in mind when I left all Diary threads 20+ years ago. Never returned to any of them, Caz knows my views (being the person I made any comments to on the subject), the only reasonable interest I can see for anyone is to figure out the minute of how it was done.

I can't remember what your views were then, Jon, but I'm not sure I understand them now.

My own interest, as always, is in the who, how, when and why. I don't give two hoots what the answers are, but if only the author could be identified beyond doubt, at least we might have a chance with the other questions.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Less tolerant for stupidity the older I get.
I couldn't say which is worse, Stephen Knight's The Final Solution, Royal Conspiracy crap or, Shirley Harrison's The Diary of Jack the Ripper, deceptive nonsense.
Sorry, just passing through a senior rant here....
I just get tired of hearing about diaries, royal princes & black magic rituals.
Maybe there'll be a laxative available someday.....

Shirley Harrison and I may not be your intellectual equals, Jon, but I am as sure as I can be that she was not being deliberately 'deceptive' when she wrote that book.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Would you say, Jon, that the author always intended to remain anonymous, and had no desire to try and market their own work for fame or fortune?

My guess is about as relevant as you asking me what the motive was for the Whitechapel murders, how much time have you got? We've been debating that one for close to a quarter century on Casebook alone.

Was it done out of mischief, do you suppose, or just to see how effectively these two famous cases from consecutive years could be combined in one literary exercise?

All I have in mind is the identity of the one person who is the most likely source for all the Maybrick & Ripper background used in the book. It isn't necessary that this person was also the creator, that may or may not have been someone else.

I did wonder if it was ever meant for public scrutiny, as there was no attempt to copy Maybrick's known handwriting. But then there is the signature, expertly copied and scratched in the damned watch, that continues to defy a credible explanation. And why on earth would your respected researcher plant either artefact in the Maybrick home, unless mischief was indeed the motive?

I can't imagine why a forged signature.....never mind, I'm not going to waste any time debating it.
Why plant the book in the Maybrick home? - where would you keep your diary, at work?

[Wickerman]

I seriously struggle with who Jon has in mind!

You struggle with identifying who I am talking about, or struggle with the idea that this person could have been involved?

[Wickerman]

I'm thinking your author is no longer with us, am I right?

True.

[Wickerman]

I can't remember what your views were then, Jon, but I'm not sure I understand them now.

My own interest, as always, is in the who, how, when and why. I don't give two hoots what the answers are, but if only the author could be identified beyond doubt, at least we might have a chance with the other questions.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, you may have forgotten but a few years ago I was talking with you about how Melvin Harris exposed a few issues claimed by Harrison &Co. You then added that Harris was not always correct in his conclusions, or something to that end.

This was the last exchange I had with anyone on Diary matters.

[Wickerman]

Shirley Harrison and I may not be your intellectual equals, Jon, but I am as sure as I can be that she was not being deliberately 'deceptive' when she wrote that book.

Ah, sarcasm, love it
No, I have not claimed Shirley Harrison forged the Diary, she was clearly taken in by the deception.

Neither do I recall you arguing for the acceptance of the Diary as 'real' back in the day. But you surely remember the numerous posters you blindly believed the story verbatim?

[Wickerman]

But you surely remember the numerous posters you blindly believed the story verbatim?

Sorry, that was meant to be "who".



But you surely remember the numerous posters who blindly believed the story verbatim?

[erobitha]

True.

Okay, the I had the wrong person in mind. Can’t say That you have not piqued my curiosity. I shall be speculating (this time quietly to myself) who the researcher you are indeed referring to.

[Scott Nelson]

Too bad this thread has altered so much...but,

Tony Devereux probably rewrote a diary found in Battlecrease House and gave it to Mike Barrett in 1990. The original (now lost) was a spoof originated by eccentric playwrite Harry Dam, ham actor George Grossmith and musician Michael Maybrick.

[clark2710]

Less tolerant for stupidity the older I get.
I couldn't say which is worse, Stephen Knight's The Final Solution, Royal Conspiracy crap or, Shirley Harrison's The Diary of Jack the Ripper, deceptive nonsense.
Sorry, just passing through a senior rant here....
I just get tired of hearing about diaries, royal princes & black magic rituals.
Maybe there'll be a laxative available someday.....

If you said already forgive me please but could you tell me who you favor to be the Ripper? Your top 3 or such?