25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[Iconoclast]

Dear Captain O'Noclast,

As the person in this thread who referred to "the possible undressing" (not my words) of Anne Barrett's explanation, I assume you are referring to me, although I don't recognise the words "rejoicing" or "Naysaying brigade" as applying to me.

If you look at my post, however, you will see that I used the word "paradox" to describe the situation. I did this deliberately. The "obvious alternative" is not lost on me at all.

What I was getting at in my post is that those "yeahsayers" who are (or will be) happy to abandon the provenance provided Anne at the drop of a hat in favour of an "under the floorboards at Battlecrease" provenance should at least face up to the fact that it means they are fully prepared to attribute to Anne the creative imagination of someone who could have assisted in an equally imaginative story which is to be found in the Diary.

If it turns out that the Battlecrease provenance is not quite as conclusive as Robert Smith appears to believe (according to the newspaper quotes) there is really no going back.

I'm just dashing out to walk the dogs so it's brief. I wasn't referring to you David. The Naysayers are those who post negatively on the journal with no argument to support it, or some painful re-hash of a familiar well-worn and very tedious view with no consideration of the possible (that it may be authentic, however unlikely). Gotta dash!

[David Orsam]

I'm just dashing out to walk the dogs so it's brief. I wasn't referring to you David. The Naysayers are those who post negatively on the journal with no argument to support it, or some painful re-hash of a familiar well-worn and very tedious view with no consideration of the possible (that it may be authentic, however unlikely). Gotta dash!

I suppose the problem is that with the author of the journal using an expression that wasn't actually in use in 1888/9, it's hard to give very much consideration to the possibility that it may be authentic.

[Phil Carter]

I suppose the problem is that with the author of the journal using an expression that wasn't actually in use in 1888/9, it's hard to give very much consideration to the possibility that it may be authentic.

Hello David,

Exactly. "One off" is from a more modern time.


Phil

[Iconoclast]

I suppose the problem is that with the author of the journal using an expression that wasn't actually in use in 1888/9, it's hard to give very much consideration to the possibility that it may be authentic.

And if that is what the Naysayers cited, then I would feel that they had some insight into what are the journal's true underlying problems. Instead, we get re-hashes of the old, threadbare arguments about Kelly's breasts and the likes which - whilst strange if the journal were authentic - are not categorical contradictions of the possibility of authenticity. 'Kelly's key wasn't removed so the journal is a hoax' is one of the perennial ill-thought out retorts from the journal numb nuts when you and I both know that that is far from an established fact either way.

Personally, I accept that 'one-off instance' - based upon your interpretation - is a very awkward line in the journal and it may well prove to be the one undeniable, et cetera, fact which nails the hoax. I don't accept that any of the other arguments we hear have validity.

Ike

[John G]

I suppose we must all take a position on this but, personally, apart from"one off instance", the biggest problem I have with the diary is that the evidence overwhelmingly points to a local man being the perpetrator. I mean, just look how close Bucks Row is to Hanbury Street. In fact, all of the murder sites are incredibly close to one another. Is there another example, in the history of serial murders, of so many unusual murders being committed within such a tiny geographical area? Or for that matter so many murders, unusual or not, being committed within such a small geographical area and over such a small time frame?

You know, one of my favourite suspects is William Bury. But he wasn't a local Whitechapel man either. And that's a huge problem for me.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

You yourself have said that you doubt this new book contains much new information..or words to that effect.

Given that it may well not. £25 is quite a sum to fork out for something that doesn't actually change the situation very much.

Therefore. I only see a money making promotion idea to coincide with an anniversary of something which, imho, has caused more problems in this field that any other.

Now..call me cynical by all means..but anyone involved..and I mean anyone (in your reference to the Liverpool conference presentation of speakers and panellists) in pushing the continued idea that this so called Diary is real i.e. written by the multiple murderer of Whitechapel in 1888 had better have far more worthwhile evidence to present in order for the general public to use £25 on a new book. The "Diary team" is, imho, doing itself no favours by re-promoting the Diary "just because" (my words) the anniversary of the production of this book has arrived.
No..it isn't something to be proud of either.
The mere mention that the Fraud Squad were involved in this debacle is enough reason to leave it be.
Unless..of course..the impossible were to happen. The real truth about who wrote it. And that isnt happening with this book.

I happen to agree with Philip Sugden, Stewart Evans and many others.

Adam Wood and Mango books can choose to publish what they wish. When asked..I will not support nor recommend the purchasing of this item. Unlike you 20 odd years ago..Ive not been "sitting so long on the fence I've got piles".

I don't believe in keeping the bandwagon rolling just because it should roll on ad infinitum. That applies to anything regurgitated up from the past and dressed in new clothes.

It's opinion. And if you, Adam Wood, Robert Smith, Shirley Harrison or whomever doesn't agree with it. . Then that's up to them. Sorry.

And exactly who the "Diary team" is...all of them..yes. It is important to know who stands where and who is involved.
Because exactly THAT problem still haunts from 1992.



Phil

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,
You yourself have said that you doubt this new book contains much new information..or words to that effect.

Given that it may well not. £25 is quite a sum to fork out for something that doesn't actually change the situation very much.

Hi Phil,
I hope you are feeling a little stronger. I was quite concerned by your struggles with those earlier posts.

The book is a very high-quality, full-colour reproduction of the diary, fully annotated, and with a text telling the history of the document. Not having seen the book, but aware of Mango Books' production values, I think £25 is a modest cover price for a small print run, limited edition, niche book. If the text advances our knowledge of the history of the diary, that would be interesting and perhaps valuable. If it doesn't, well that's probably not what most people buying the book are buying it for. So, I don't agree that £25 is over-pricing for what the book is.

Therefore. I only see a money making promotion idea to coincide with an anniversary of something which, imho, has caused more problems in this field that any other.

Well, as said above, I don't think a limited edition, high production standard book, is going to make anyone any money worth speaking of. Publishing it at the time of the anniversary doesn't bother me and I can't quite see why it should bother anyone else. As for the trouble the diary has caused, the fact is that it is now a piece of unresolved Ripper history. Those who are interested can now get the best view short of looking at the book itself of what has caused all the fuss. I think you need to look beyond your prejudices at the wider picture.

Now..call me cynical by all means..but anyone involved..and I mean anyone (in your reference to the Liverpool conference presentation of speakers and panellists) in pushing the continued idea that this so called Diary is real i.e. written by the multiple murderer of Whitechapel in 1888 had better have far more worthwhile evidence to present in order for the general public to use £25 on a new book. The "Diary team" is, imho, doing itself no favours by re-promoting the Diary "just because" (my words) the anniversary of the production of this book has arrived.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Robert Smith nor the conference panellists is pushing the idea that the diary was written by the person responsible for any of the Whitechapel murders. So, the above is irrelevant.

No..it isn't something to be proud of either.
The mere mention that the Fraud Squad were involved in this debacle is enough reason to leave it be.

Being proud of trying to get at the truth about the diary (if anyone is proud of that) and the historic investigation by the Fraud Squad have no relation to one another at all, so I don't think you have a point. Do you actually know what the Fraud Squad investigated, why, and what they concluded?

Unless..of course..the impossible were to happen. The real truth about who wrote it. And that isnt happening with this book.

Has anybody suggested that the book reveals who wrote the diary? I mean, if nobody has said it will, there will be no surprise when it doesn't.

I happen to agree with Philip Sugden, Stewart Evans and many others.

About what?

Adam Wood and Mango books can choose to publish what they wish. I will not support nor recommend the purchasing of this item. Unlike you 20 odd years ago..Ive not been "sitting so long on the fence I've got piles".

That got a good laugh, didn't it? Almost my chance of getting into a dictionary of quotations. But I don't think Adam has asked for your support or recommendation. In fact, I suspect that your reaction to it was anticipated.

I don't believe in keeping the bandwagon rolling just because it should roll on ad infinitum. That applies to anything regurgitated up from the past and dressed in new clothes.

I don't believe in it either, but nobody seems to be doing that.

It's opinion. And if you, Adam Wood, Robert Smith, Shirley Harrison or whomever doesn't agree with it. . Then that's up to them. Sorry.

Fine.

And exactly who the "Diary team" is...all of them..yes. It is important to know who stands where and who is involved.

Because exactly THAT problem still haunts from 1992.

There wasn't a 'diary team' in 1992, so that comment makes no sense. And I haven't said that it wasn't important to know who composes the current 'diary team' ( although I don't think it does), I asked why you questioned whether Adam would name the team, and why you added 'all of them'. Has Adam ever been less than straight-dealing? Why insinuate tat he wouldn't name them, all of them? You could have just written, 'Could you name the team, please Adam?' As Mr. P.pointed out elsewhere, your turn of phrase carried a depth of meaning that's offensive and provocative.



Phil[/QUOTE]

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,
I hope you are feeling a little stronger. I was quite concerned by your struggles with those earlier posts.

The book is a very high-quality, full-colour reproduction of the diary, fully annotated, and with a text telling the history of the document. Not having seen the book, but aware of Mango Books' production values, I think £25 is a modest cover price for a small print run, limited edition, niche book. If the text advances our knowledge of the history of the diary, that would be interesting and perhaps valuable. If it doesn't, well that's probably not what most people buying the book are buying it for. So, I don't agree that £25 is over-pricing for what the book is.



Well, as said above, I don't think a limited edition, high production standard book, is going to make anyone any money worth speaking of. Publishing it at the time of the anniversary doesn't bother me and I can't quite see why it should bother anyone else. As for the trouble the diary has caused, the fact is that it is now a piece of unresolved Ripper history. Those who are interested can now get the best view short of looking at the book itself of what has caused all the fuss. I think you need to look beyond your prejudices at the wider picture.



To the best of my knowledge, neither Robert Smith nor the conference panellists is pushing the idea that the diary was written by the person responsible for any of the Whitechapel murders. So, the above is irrelevant.



Being proud of trying to get at the truth about the diary (if anyone is proud of that) and the historic investigation by the Fraud Squad have no relation to one another at all, so I don't think you have a point. Do you actually know what the Fraud Squad investigated, why, and what they concluded?



Has anybody suggested that the book reveals who wrote the diary? I mean, if nobody has said it will, there will be no surprise when it doesn't.



About what?



That got a good laugh, didn't it? Almost my chance of getting into a dictionary of quotations. But I don't think Adam has asked for your support or recommendation. In fact, I suspect that your reaction to it was anticipated.



I don't believe in it either, but nobody seems to be doing that.



Fine.



There wasn't a 'diary team' in 1992, so that comment makes no sense. And I haven't said that it wasn't important to know who composes the current 'diary team' ( although I don't think it does), I asked why you questioned whether Adam would name the team, and why you added 'all of them'. Has Adam ever been less than straight-dealing? Why insinuate tat he wouldn't name them, all of them? You could have just written, 'Could you name the team, please Adam?' As Mr. P.pointed out elsewhere, your turn of phrase carried a depth of meaning that's offensive and provocative.



Phil

[/QUOTE]

Hello Paul,

I haven't questioned whether Adam Wood has been straight dealing at all. You assume that I may do. It is wrong to assume.
What I have said..and this will be the third time now.. is that it would be far better and far more "un-Diarylike" if this..or any other such product is shown with all whom are involved in it's making. "The Diary Team" does not have a very positive ring to these ears. Only because of the history of the secrecy and the lies associated with said "Diary". There were many involved 25 years ago. Some kept quiet.
it seems that two electricians are playing denial this time?
For example.


Now. You may not have a problem with the methodology of -my words- making money out of old rope...but I do. As there apparently is little new and does not enhance the case at all, I opine it to be cynicallly opportunistic.
Mind you. I'm not a publisher trying to make a profit out of it.

As far as me politely asking Adam Wood or certain others questions in the manner of which you speak.. Ive tried that. Many many times. Basically I've been told..often..that people will do as they please and resent being questioned. So no. I wont bother. I am by nature a polite person but that politeness has been thrown back at me so often, I refuse to use that politeness on all anymore. Life is too short to wait constantly upon others. I'm sure Adam can read and am sure that if he chose he would have answered by now anyway. No matter. 'Tis but a small point of order.

As regarding your rather strange quote I used, about sitting on the fence..Im afraid it wont get into any dictionary of famous quotations..it isn't original. I believe I heard it or a close variation in the 1970's. Sorry.
What I will ask you though is how do you stand on the subject today? Or are you still 'com-piling'.. as it were.?

oh..one more thing. Adam Wood doesnt need to ask me nor expect me to back this book publishing adventure.
but others probably will. As I said. To those who ask, I will opine it to be a waste of money will nothing persuadively new to add.

Phil

[Abby Normal]

Hi Phil,
I hope you are feeling a little stronger. I was quite concerned by your struggles with those earlier posts.

The book is a very high-quality, full-colour reproduction of the diary, fully annotated, and with a text telling the history of the document. Not having seen the book, but aware of Mango Books' production values, I think £25 is a modest cover price for a small print run, limited edition, niche book. If the text advances our knowledge of the history of the diary, that would be interesting and perhaps valuable. If it doesn't, well that's probably not what most people buying the book are buying it for. So, I don't agree that £25 is over-pricing for what the book is.



Well, as said above, I don't think a limited edition, high production standard book, is going to make anyone any money worth speaking of. Publishing it at the time of the anniversary doesn't bother me and I can't quite see why it should bother anyone else. As for the trouble the diary has caused, the fact is that it is now a piece of unresolved Ripper history. Those who are interested can now get the best view short of looking at the book itself of what has caused all the fuss. I think you need to look beyond your prejudices at the wider picture.



To the best of my knowledge, neither Robert Smith nor the conference panellists is pushing the idea that the diary was written by the person responsible for any of the Whitechapel murders. So, the above is irrelevant.



Being proud of trying to get at the truth about the diary (if anyone is proud of that) and the historic investigation by the Fraud Squad have no relation to one another at all, so I don't think you have a point. Do you actually know what the Fraud Squad investigated, why, and what they concluded?



Has anybody suggested that the book reveals who wrote the diary? I mean, if nobody has said it will, there will be no surprise when it doesn't.



About what?



That got a good laugh, didn't it? Almost my chance of getting into a dictionary of quotations. But I don't think Adam has asked for your support or recommendation. In fact, I suspect that your reaction to it was anticipated.



I don't believe in it either, but nobody seems to be doing that.



Fine.



There wasn't a 'diary team' in 1992, so that comment makes no sense. And I haven't said that it wasn't important to know who composes the current 'diary team' ( although I don't think it does), I asked why you questioned whether Adam would name the team, and why you added 'all of them'. Has Adam ever been less than straight-dealing? Why insinuate tat he wouldn't name them, all of them? You could have just written, 'Could you name the team, please Adam?' As Mr. P.pointed out elsewhere, your turn of phrase carried a depth of meaning that's offensive and provocative.



Phil

[/QUOTE]

Hi Paul

"..the fact is that it is now a piece of unresolved ripper history."

But this is the problem with the whole diary thing IMHO. It isn't . Or shouldn't be.

To me it isn't a part of any history anymore than nonsense like Hitler's diary is a part of WW 2 history or Bigfoot is a part of natural history.

I mean seriously? Is the royal conspiracy or any other crackpot theory a part of ripper history? Or real history for that matter?

I mean where does it end? Sickert, HH Holmes. And these are just two of the most recent ridiculous suspect theories. Who's next-Buffalo Bill?

Personally, as a novice to this subject I'm disappointed that more of the respected experts in this field don't take a more active voice debunking and quashing all this crap. On the contrary it seems more and more they're all to willing to put their name to it.

I mean honestly, what does perpetuating the diary and the like do for the good of the field? I d really like to know.

I don't know maybe I need to lighten up. And just have a jolly good time with it all.

[drstrange169]

Just a general request, can people not quote whole posts, particularly when they are only talking generally anyway?

Not aimed at anyone in particular, but more and more people seem to be doing it now.

Thanks.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul

"..the fact is that it is now a piece of unresolved ripper history."

But this is the problem with the whole diary thing IMHO. It isn't . Or shouldn't be.

To me it isn't a part of any history anymore than nonsense like Hitler's diary is a part of WW 2 history or Bigfoot is a part of natural history.

I mean seriously? Is the royal conspiracy or any other crackpot theory a part of ripper history? Or real history for that matter?

I mean where does it end? Sickert, HH Holmes. And these are just two of the most recent ridiculous suspect theories. Who's next-Buffalo Bill?

Personally, as a novice to this subject I'm disappointed that more of the respected experts in this field don't take a more active voice debunking and quashing all this crap. On the contrary it seems more and more they're all to willing to put their name to it.

I mean honestly, what does perpetuating the diary and the like do for the good of the field? I d really like to know.

I don't know maybe I need to lighten up. And just have a jolly good time with it all.

Ripper history isn't the mystery of who committed the murders, it embraces the reaction to the murders at the time and since, therefore the royal conspiracy theory is obviously a part of Ripper history: Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution has been in print longer and has probably out sold any other Ripper book ever written, and as such it has probably introduced more people to the subject than any other and influenced poplar thinking on the subject. How can it not be a part of Ripper history? And history doesn't end - or hopefully it won't for a good long while - and theories will come and go, and each one will leave its mark in the sands of time.

As far as I can see, nobody is perpatuating any crap. The diary emerged twenty-five years ago and in spite of common belief, we still don't know who authored it or why. You may not think it's worth trying to find that out, but if somebody else thinks differently and is prepared to committ time and effort into trying, why shouldn't they? And why shouldn't they be supported when they make their findings available for public inspection? That's all that's hapening here. And I am not prepared to pre-judge the motives or the intentions of those wo are doing that, or pre-judge their findings before I know what they are, or damn a book before it's published.

[Purkis]

Hello David,

Exactly. "One off" is from a more modern time.


Phil

One off had been used before, but the diarist was apparently the first to pair 'one off' with 'instance'.

[Phil Carter]

But this is the problem with the whole diary thing IMHO. It isn't . Or shouldn't be.

To me it isn't a part of any history anymore than nonsense like Hitler's diary is a part of WW 2 history or Bigfoot is a part of natural history.

I mean seriously? Is the royal conspiracy or any other crackpot theory a part of ripper history? Or real history for that matter?

I mean where does it end? Sickert, HH Holmes. And these are just two of the most recent ridiculous suspect theories. Who's next-Buffalo Bill?

Personally, as a novice to this subject I'm disappointed that more of the respected experts in this field don't take a more active voice debunking and quashing all this crap. On the contrary it seems more and more they're all to willing to put their name to it.

I mean honestly, what does perpetuating the diary and the like do for the good of the field? I d really like to know.
.[/QUOTE]

Hello Abby,

I agree entirely with your honest opinion.
Which is why I asked in a post long ago why anyone would actually want to be associated with..I think the very modern terminology is.."fake news".

The "Diary" believers use the old get out of jail free clause..
"Why hasn't it been proved a fake?".
For the same reason we cant prove Druitt had a nasty little affair with any boys at his school, for the same reason we cannot prove the marginalia to be false, for the same reason we will never be able to prove any contentious problem that suddenly "appears" from out of nowhere.
We are not meant to.

You see..this field has..well..for at least 129 years spouted forth ideas, theories and arguments. Think of all the policemen in Goulston Street who managed to write one sentence differently..6 times! And all the policemen with their different views and theories. No real certainty at all in any of it.
So..take that forward a few decades or more, and this "impossible" unsolvable crime gets manipulated by certain people. Stephen Knight with Joseph Sickert's tale is a good example. We are told, in defence of the tale, that dear old Joseph "utterly believed" his story. Somehow that makes it ok for some. Actually..it doesn't mean anything else than that Joseph believed it..lie or not. But..because somehow some influential persons "ok'd" his belief..it has become falsely, history. Just like that blasted Shawl. All made up yet..backed by a few.
No..these things should not be part of Ripper history at all. You are quite right. But whoa betide those who want these things removed and stamped "crap".
That is why the wheels must be kept on the wagon. There are expert opinions at stake. Going way back.

You are dead right in your opinion imho.
It won't change anything. Because nobody who should..like you say..dares denounce this stuff. Friendship is a strong bond. Don't want to break that.



Phil

[Phil Carter]

One off had been used before, but the diarist was apparently the first to pair 'one off' with 'instance'.

Hello Purkis,

Thanks..my error when writing (too quickly).
Appreciate the correction.


Phil

[Henry Flower]

"I opine it to be" ?!

Seriously, Phil Carter? You're going to inflict writing as sophomoronic as that on the rest of us?

Jesus......