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

[Henry Flower]

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.

Noted.

[Phil Carter]

"I opine it to be" ?!

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

Jesus......

No not a Jesus quote. 😊
Call it what you will old chap.
Its just an opinion after all 😊


Phil

[PaulB]

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.

I’m not assuming anything, Phil. You don’t often make outright accusations, you imply and insinuate and then you can claim innocence. I don’t often cite posts by other people, especially when made on another site, but the other day Lars politely told you the same thing, writing that you phrase questions ‘in such a way that would lead the casual reader to think you were asking the question in a way designed to cast a slight or perhaps get a dig in…’ Lars went on to say that the way you phrased your ‘question’ to Robert Anderson ‘…accords perfectly with my contention as to you (an anti-diary person) engendering an atmosphere of ... how shall I put it.....nastiness?’

Regarding Adam, you wrote:

Now I wonder if Adam Wood will name the "members" of this "Diary team"....all of them?

You have no reason to wonder if Adam would name the ‘Diary Team’, so why wonder it? The question implies an uncertainty which you have no reason to feel.

You add emphasis with the words ‘all of them’. Again, you have no reason to think that there would be any reason to withhold the names of ‘team’ members or that Adam would do so, so why leave the reader to infer otherwise? You are obviously suggesting something about Adam, but you’re avoiding being forthright about it. But if anybody was left in any doubt about your intentions, you then wrote:

Or is that secret information only for those supposed to be in on this? (I use "in on this" to be read in whatever way one wishes to interpret it)

Why would it be secret information? Why do you ask if there is a select group ‘in on’ the secret information? I you don’t think such a bizarre thing, why ask it?

No, Phil, I’m not making assumptions here. It’s you doing what you usually do, and as Lars put it, engendering an atmosphere of nastiness.

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. "

I can’t see where you ask that, Phil. Or say anything of the sort. You certainly don’t say it in what you are quoted above as saying.

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.

There wasn’t a ‘Diary Team’ twenty-five years ago, nor is there a history of secrecy and lies, unless you are referring to the ever changing stories from Mike and Anne, so what are you talking about? And the electricians aren’t members of any ‘Diary Team’.

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.

An expensive-to-produce, high-quality, full-colour, limited edition, niche market book doesn’t make a profit worth talking about, yet you continue to refer to a publisher trying to make a profit out of such a book. Why? What’s your evidence for thinking this is an attempted money-making venture?

As a matter of fact, I haven’t given you any reason to think I think it’s right to make money out of old rope, Phil. I have stated quite clearly that I don’t accept that Robert Smith and Adam Wood are doing that, but are making a high-quality, annotated facsimile available as a modest price to those who might be interested in such a thing. And I do not consider such a thing to be ‘old rope’.

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.

Okay.

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.

Hopes dashed. I’ll manage to contain my disappointment, though. I wasn’t being serious anyway.

What I will ask you though is how do you stand on the subject today? Or are you still 'com-piling'.. as it were.?

What I think or don’t think isn’t relevant. However, on the day I first read the diary I concluded that it almost certainly wasn’t the confession of Jack the Ripper. And I still have my the notes I made at the time. Nothing has happened in twenty-five years to alter that conclusion. However, we don’t know when it was written, why it was written, or, crucially, who wrote it. It appears to be a far more complex document than accords with the theory that it was produced by Mike and Anne one rainy weekend in the hope of making enough money for Mike to buy a small greenhouse. For some that doesn’t matter, for me knowing who wrote it, why it was written and when it was written is important. At worst it will finally put the diary to bed, at best there will be an interesting story attached. That seems a sensible approach to me. I appreciate it doesn’t to you.

oh..one more thing. Adam Wood doesn.t 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 persuasively new to add.

Fine. As you said, Phil, life is short. We can’t waste it batting this back and forth and it's taking up more time and space than it merits.

[Kaz]

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

Exactly what 'bad' does it do?

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

Could you make me a list of all the suspects that keeps me 'IN' the ripperologists 'club' and all the suspects that keep me on the outside hammering nails into the aforementioned 'club'

It is quite true that some books are missing. It is supposed that they have been taken away by someone interested in my daughter's downfall. We have wanted these books since my arrival in England after my daughter's arrest. If these books had not been missing much that is mysterious would have been made clear. I shall be able to tell them more about them when I see you. It is always a matter of regret that my daughter's papers and effects, as well as all the household effects were disposed of with such undue haste before the trial"

[Iconoclast]

Mr Begg's use of a line already in use may not have been original but - in the context of the video it appeared in - it is kind of legendary and defining. It also got a laugh which isn't something we've had much of since.

It is defining because it encapsulates another truth, this one spoken - as I recall - by Keith Skinner: "We just can't shake it".

And 25 years later, we still can't (despite Mr Orsam's best efforts).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why doesn't anyone get so angry about Lewis Carroll, Robert Mann, Albert Bachert, Neil Cream, Arthur Conan Doyle etc as they appear to over anything connected to the diary?

How is it that no-one insinuates that the authors of the above books aren't intentially and dishonestly ripping everyone off?

Why is anyone who even allows of slightest (even vanishingly small) possibility that the diary may not be a hoax, or might be other than a 'modern' hoax, is insulted as a gullible idiot?

Why is a book being rubbished by intelligent people who have yet to read it but are quite happy to call its supporters biased?

Because the diary has been around for so long don't we think that simple 'opposition' has festered into unreasonable hatred? It's almost as if people feel the thing to be 'evil.' I got a bit angry with the Conan Doyle book because I admire Doyle hugely (as you could guess from my name) but it's gone now. I don't hold on to it like a longstanding feud. If someone wants to accuse ACD it's up to them and their own consciences. History will judge. The diary, however, appears to transcend reason. Like many on here I've been interested in this case for around 30 years. This fact doesn't make me any more knowledgeable, reasonable or honest than anyone else. I can recall though the downright anger at the diary from the start; even before most people had any real knowledge of it.

All I'm trying to say is, and I'm agreeing with Paul here, shouldn't we just wait and read the book? Doesn't really take a genius does it? It's what we do. Read a book then debate its content. The diary is still here; whatever our individual thoughts on it. My own position is that it's far, far more likely to be a forgery than not. I just have that very, very tiny 'worm of doubt,' which makes me want to find out more. I dont think that qualifies me as a gullible idiot and, although I try not to be, it makes me a little angry when it's insinuated that I am!

[Kaz]

All I'm trying to say is, and I'm agreeing with Paul here, shouldn't we just wait and read the book? Doesn't really take a genius does it? It's what we do. Read a book then debate its content. The diary is still here; whatever our individual thoughts on it. My own position is that it's far, far more likely to be a forgery than not. I just have that very, very tiny 'worm of doubt,' which makes me want to find out more. I dont think that qualifies me as a gullible idiot and, although I try not to be, it makes me a little angry when it's insinuated that I am!

Some on here seem to think the likes of myself needs shepherding away from the EVIL of a suspect and the nasty conmen who fleece me of my hard earned cash (possibly £50 in 25 years.... )


The diary was partially scuppered from the get go .... the Hitler diaries, the barret claims and counter claims etc etc etc

And yet James Maybrick remains one of the most interesting suspects IMO


And theres STILL so much more to learn!

Thanks to all the great detectives who spend so much time and energy (and their MONEY!) to solve the most mysterious of cases!

[Harry D]

It is defining because it encapsulates another truth, this one spoken - as I recall - by Keith Skinner: "We just can't shake it".

And 25 years later, we still can't (despite Mr Orsam's best efforts).

Yeah but treading in dog turd has much the same effect.

[caz]

Call me crazy, Trevy, but is it not possible that you're simply commenting on a different sort of trend altogether? Maybe it's the way you asked your questions that caused the two to choose not to respond?

Hi Ike,

I wonder if Trevy ever asked Robert Smith to act as literary agent for him.

If so it might explain everything. I would offer to act as Trevy's literacy agent but I'm not sure he'd understood the offer.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

I have chosen some music to lower the temperature on this thread - soothing and hopefully fitting :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPEqRMVnZNU

[caz]

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.

It shouldn't be, John.

Anyone with murder in mind who has access to some form of transport would do well to travel a little or a long way from home to commit his crimes where his victims of choice may be found in considerable numbers and where he is not a familiar figure known by name.

Colin Ireland travelled by train from the Essex coast to Fulham in London to pick up each of his five gay victims at the same pub. If he hadn't been seen with one of them on CCTV he might never have been caught.

It might be unusual, but it's an unusual game.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi Abby,

Were you not until recently open to the idea that the diary may have been an older hoax [prior to, say, 1970], and therefore something more akin to the hoax ripper letters sent in by dozens of writers of wildly varying literary ability, all falling over themselves to claim to be Jack? Or even the GSG, which most people these days seem to consider entirely unrelated to the murders?

This is all surely part of ripper history, isn't it? Do you similarly complain when the Dear Boss letter is discussed, or From Hell and its offal enclosure?

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

Well it would probably help you.

I suggested elsewhere a tipple made from pale ale and 7-Up. I called it a Lighten Up. I would offer it here for £25 a crate if I thought there'd be a market, but those who could do with it most seem to prefer drowning in their own misery.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Were you not until recently open to the idea that the diary may have been an older hoax [prior to, say, 1970], and therefore something more akin to the hoax ripper letters sent in by dozens of writers of wildly varying literary ability, all falling over themselves to claim to be Jack? Or even the GSG, which most people these days seem to consider entirely unrelated to the murders?

This is all surely part of ripper history, isn't it? Do you similarly complain when the Dear Boss letter is discussed, or From Hell and its offal enclosure?



Well it would probably help you.

I suggested elsewhere a tipple made from pale ale and 7-Up. I called it a Lighten Up. I would offer it here for £25 a crate if I thought there'd be a market, but those who could do with it most seem to prefer drowning in their own misery.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Comparing the diary to dear boss, saucy jack or the GSG is like comparing your pale concoction to the Kentucky bourbon on the rocks Ill be drowning my misery in tonight. ; )

It is Friday after all. time to lighten up I guess!

[caz]

Mr Begg's use of a line already in use may not have been original but - in the context of the video it appeared in - it is kind of legendary and defining. It also got a laugh which isn't something we've had much of since.

It is defining because it encapsulates another truth, this one spoken - as I recall - by Keith Skinner: "We just can't shake it".

Not by Keith, I don't think, Ike.

But I do have a couple of messages to pass on shortly from TD. No, not Tony Devereux, rest his soul, but "Team Diary".

Watch this space.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi Paul
Thanks for your reasonable and even keeled response. As usual your a scholar and a gentleman.

and I note your remark about "The Final Solution...has probably introduced more people to the subject.."

of course I would prefer people to be first introduced to the subject through one of your books, or say Sugden, but I see what you mean and I guess the possible good thing is if it or any of this other stuff I dislike inspires some newcomer to do great research on the subject or perhaps spark someones memory of crazy family stories to go up in the attic and check that old chest well I guess that's the silver lining isn't it?

Happy Friday.