Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

Post 7,457. Remember this one, it's a cracker, and you will be quizzed on it in the future. Just because you have reached post 999,334 and the topic has diverged to the meaning of life and everything, don't think you will be excused from not knowing that Anne once had a bad back.

You've lost me there Gary. Either you haven't been following the discussion, and thus don't understand the reason for my post, or you are just being deliberately obtuse.

[MrBarnett]

The notion that Anne couldn't have spared a few hours to practice handwriting because she was in full time employment and had a few other things to do is just a joke. In any event, look what we are told about Anne by her work colleague Audrey Johnson (in Harrison's 2003 book):

"Anne had to give up work for a while with a bad back..."

Post 7,457. Remember this one, it's a cracker, and you will be quizzed on it in the future. Just because you have reached post 999,334 and the topic has diverged to the meaning of life and everything, don't think you will be excused from not knowing that Anne once had a bad back.

[David Orsam]

David,

Just how many secretaries have you known who didn't know the difference between 'your' and you're'? No doubt you interrogated a vast number of them rigorously to make sure they wouldn't have inadvertently misspelt the word. 'Huge' suggests, maybe, hundreds ... thousands... millions...?

You're eager public awaits clarification.

Tina from the tiping poole

A lot of them. It didn't need interrogation, it was there in their emails. I once recall thinking that there isn't a single secretary who uses "your" correctly. I did discover some subsequently but the minority in my experience.

[MrBarnett]

"Anne worked as a secretary so unless she was considerably more literate than Mike was, bless him, I'm not sure how she'd have held down a job like that for long."

That's hilarious. For two reasons.

Firstly we've been told repeatedly that Mike wasn't literate enough to have written the Diary. Now Anne couldn't have written it because she was too literate!!

Secondly, the number of secretaries I've known who don't understand the difference between "your" and "you're" is huge.

A secretary needs to know how to type. That's it. They might prepare a first draft from, say a Dictaphone tape, with any spelling and punctuation errors being corrected by the author. It strikes me as ludicrous to say that someone who was a secretary couldn't have written the Diary.

David,

Just how many secretaries have you known who didn't know the difference between 'your' and you're'? No doubt you interrogated a vast number of them rigorously to make sure they wouldn't have inadvertently misspelt the word. 'Huge' suggests, maybe, hundreds ... thousands... millions...?

You're eager public awaits clarification.

Tina from the tiping poole

[Sam Flynn]

All the superficial scratches were found to be later than all the Maybrick/ripper engravings using electron microscopy.

At least in those areas which Turgoose was able to examine, as pointed out by David Orsam a few posts back. I doubt very much that the surface of the watch was scanned in its entirety, and Turgoose implies that only some areas had been.

Besides, I wouldn't expect too many scratches to have been present on the protected inner surface of a watch anyway, at least not until the steel wool and emery cloth (or whatever) had worked their funky magic.

[Sam Flynn]

As you know, I have considerable reservations about the value of this type of analysis, in that it can only really demonstrate the as yet unidentified author's minimum writing skills.

I never intended it to be anything other than my own private notes on what transpired to be a truly atrociously-written piece of text, Caz (I was surprised at how bad it was, in fact). Howard asked me if he could upload my "Annotated Diary" on his site, and I was pleased to let him do so, but it was never intended to be a structured critique in the form of, say, a dissertation.

Rough as they are, however, I think my notes are still useful in highlighting just how many clunkers there are in the diary... for whatever reason. I'd still maintain that the most likely explanation is that the hoaxer(s) wasn't/weren't particularly well-educated.

[David Orsam]

The notion that Anne couldn't have spared a few hours to practice handwriting because she was in full time employment and had a few other things to do is just a joke. In any event, look what we are told about Anne by her work colleague Audrey Johnson (in Harrison's 2003 book):

"Anne had to give up work for a while with a bad back..."

[David Orsam]

Of course, not everyone can disguise their handwriting effectively, it's a rare skill, but people who can do it don't have a sign on their heads informing the world of their ability. That's why we can't possibly know if Anne could do it or not.

[David Orsam]

As for why the author of the diary (whoever it was) didn't use a dictionary I've already answered this one but of course that makes no difference when it comes to Maybrick matters.

If you think you have spelt a word correctly you don't bother to look it up. If there is someone who uses a dictionary to check every word they write just in case they've spelt it wrong I've yet to meet them. In any case, it didn't really matter – if you are the forger of a Maybrick Diary and word is spelt wrong you just say blame it on Maybrick!

[David Orsam]

"Anne worked as a secretary so unless she was considerably more literate than Mike was, bless him, I'm not sure how she'd have held down a job like that for long."

That's hilarious. For two reasons.

Firstly we've been told repeatedly that Mike wasn't literate enough to have written the Diary. Now Anne couldn't have written it because she was too literate!!

Secondly, the number of secretaries I've known who don't understand the difference between "your" and "you're" is huge.

A secretary needs to know how to type. That's it. They might prepare a first draft from, say a Dictaphone tape, with any spelling and punctuation errors being corrected by the author. It strikes me as ludicrous to say that someone who was a secretary couldn't have written the Diary.

[caz]

Thanks John. Link to the annotated diary below

http://www.jtrforums.com/~jtrforum/s...ead.php?t=8456

Afternoon Gareth,

As you know, I have considerable reservations about the value of this type of analysis, in that it can only really demonstrate the as yet unidentified author's minimum writing skills. This wasn't an application for the post of English teacher at one of the top schools in the country, completed and sent in by the person who wanted the job. There is no way of knowing that the diary author was writing to the very best of their abilities, without finding examples of their normal written correspondence which demonstrate similar usage and ability. And if you could do that you'd have identified your hoaxer without the need for a detailed analysis to convince anyone!

Had Maybrick been the author, whether he ever murdered anyone or was playing out a private fantasy about being Jack the Ripper, we would have learned from his diary just how good or bad the real JM's informal writing style was, and pretty much the exact limits of his language and literacy skills.

But assuming we are dealing with someone who set out to invent a fictional version of a real person, for whatever reason, and was therefore impersonating a Sir Jim/Jack who never existed, the creative options for their chosen character were wide open.

The real Macbeth was nothing like the fictional monster conjured up for the Scottish play. In my best Philomena Cunk voice: "Will.i.am Shakespeare wrote his biography of Macbeth using a load of really really hard words so women would never know he was actually warning the men of future generations never to talk to witches or listen to their wives".

If someone who only knew about Wilfred Brambell from his life in Oil Drum Lane were to conclude that he was common as muck, a poor reader and a dirty old man who ate pickled onions in the bath, you'd think they were having a laugh. Similarly, if they pointed to Richard Wilson's limited vocabulary because their only experience of it was when he used to come out with "I don't believe it!" three times in the space of half an hour.

I suppose the best example has to be a rather more relevant one: the 'From Hell' letter. You or I could spend all of two minutes posting an analysis of the literary/literacy skills on display, for what good it would do us in narrowing down potential authors, so we can all thank Christ it didn't run to 63 pages. The verdict would presumably be that the letter and kidney sent to Lusk were hoaxes most probably by a semi-literate Irish medical student.

Have a great weekend all.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I can't see why the scribe couldn't have had several practice runs with the pen long before the guard book was acquired, Caz.

"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy Battlecrease dog... Jackdaws love my sphinx of green Abberline quartz... All at once I seen a crowd, a host of golden daffodils... etc"

Indeed, but David, the world's greatest hoax buster since Mighty Mel Harris, seems to think Mike wouldn't have gone to the expense of purchasing the materials needed until after he had ascertained, around March 10th 1992, that someone might actually be interested in seeing a diary supposedly written by Jack the Ripper.

But maybe I got that wrong and David was only including the book and the ink in his reasoning and would allow Anne the luxury of a suitable dip pen and a bottle of Quink to practise with at her considerable leisure, between holding down a full-time job, being a Mum to a daughter nearing puberty, seeing to any outstanding domestic chores that Mike had managed to fvck up, 'tidying up' any of his ongoing literary efforts and composing the diary text on their word processor.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I can't imagine that many scratches would accumulate on part of a gold watch that had been largely covered up for most of its lifetime, Caz.

Absolutely, Gareth. Why would there be? There seems very little reason for that surface to have sported any visible scratches before it was defaced by whoever put the Maybrick/ripper markings there. And that's what the reports indicate.

That said, I can't see how we can know categoricallly that there were no scratches present prior to the initials, unless the watch had been microscopically examined before the engravings were made.

All the superficial scratches were found to be later than all the Maybrick/ripper engravings using electron microscopy. These random superficial scratches could clearly be seen to go across the engravings. The 'am J' and 'Maybrick' were found to be the earliest visible markings. All others were found to overlay these where crossing occurs, including the 9/3, which was put there after the 'J' of 'Jack'.

I certainly don't have the expertise to question any of this. But if Ron Murphy did try to buff out several scratch marks on that surface, they must have been visible to him without the need for any microscope, so they'd have been visible to a bandwagon hoaxer too, and infinitely clearer to Turgoose and Wild, which would mean that this hoaxer managed, for some unknown reason, to render those scratches invisible to all intents and purposes before making the Maybrick/ripper engravings and everything else that came after them.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I can't see why the scribe couldn't have had several practice runs with the pen long before the guard book was acquired, Caz.

"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy Battlecrease dog... Jackdaws love my sphinx of green Abberline quartz... All at once I seen a crowd, a host of golden daffodils... etc"

[caz]

Perhaps her spelling and punctuation weren't infallible either, Caz. I don't know much about Anne but I've no reason to believe that she was significantly more literate than her spouse. She certainly wasn't averse to committing certain grammatical blunders, as we already seen.

(Seen what I did there? )

Nice one, Gareth. But I also 'seen' why you felt the need to explain, in case anyone who didn't know you, and had not read any of your other written work, might have analysed your post and concluded your grammar was poor [and I don't mean that your grandma never had two ha'pennies to rub together ].

The fact is, I often find myself slipping into 'common' in casual conversation, depending on the circumstances, and the locals here in Sidmouth think I talk Cockney. But when I'm communicating in writing and being serious about it I try my best, with my A grade O level in English language from 1970, not to let myself down. Anne worked as a secretary, so unless she was considerably more literate than Mike was, bless him, I'm not sure how she'd have held down a job like that for long. It would have been pretty much a basic requirement, probably more so than for other lowly clerical posts such as filing clerks and office juniors. Martin Fido was surprised, if Anne helped forge the diary, that she allowed it to go out like that. But if she had written it out herself to Mike's dictation [as secretaries used to do when their boss dictated anything], it would have been down to her alone to make sure the spelling, punctuation and grammar [if not the handwriting!] was - WERE suitable for the purposes of forging the diary of James Maybrick. Did she not posses - POSSESS - a dictionary, for example? Did she not think to consult one?

One more question: is there an art to disguising one's normal handwriting, using an old-fashioned dip pen and ink, or can anyone do it with a bit of practice? I've not tried it myself, so I have no idea how I'd go about it or how it might turn out on the page, never mind 63 of the buggers, but I'd find it pretty daunting if my better half finally managed to find a book that was 'suitable for forgery purposes', an ink and dip pen that were equally 'suitable for forgery purposes' and then told me to get on with it and not to make an amateurish mess of it, because he wanted to show it off in London in a few days' time as definitely not my own work.

Love,

Caz
X