Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
    Such a cynic! You find it easier to believe that the diary confession of the world's most infamous uncaught murderer, presented to the world by a man who had acquired a partially empty Victorian diary in 1992, is a fake, than to believe that it is genuine and written by a murderer who used phrases that weren't used by anyone else of that era, or indeed for decades to come?

    Oh David, for shame....
    I think, following on from your earlier post, Henry, someone needs to write the book "Jack the Ripper Diary: The False Facts". Now that, I expect, would be a good read.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
      Enjoy, Ike. You sound a little too excited - I would recommend laminating yours so it can be wiped clean as often as required.
      I have been called a lot worse in my time, Henry.
      Iconoclast
      Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

      Comment


      • #18
        Just a quick comment.

        Until we see:
        1. what it says?
        2. What evidence is presented to back any claims in either direction. We are really whistling in the dark.

        I note the publication date is September, so still awhile to go unless there is a massive leak.


        Steve

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          someone needs to write the book "Jack the Ripper Diary: The False Facts". Now that, I expect, would be a good read.
          I suspect that it would be rather a long read, too.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            I suspect that it would be rather a long read, too.
            I have the uneasy suspicion that I've actually already read the book we're imagining..... about 25 years ago....

            Comment


            • #21
              Hi All,

              I hope that a copy of the bogus Hitler Diaries is being thrown in as part of the deal

              Regards,

              Simon
              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

              Comment


              • #22
                Well, mine is purchased, and I'm looking forward to it. Getting to see the hand-writing should be worth it, even if the Diarist's prose is awful.

                Besides, I deserve some little reward for slogging through this thread and trying to read the official reports by the analysists.
                Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                ---------------
                Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                ---------------

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                  I must say I didn't think it was Adam's words - I thought he was reproducing a summary of the book from the publishers.

                  I've seen the exact same question asked on these boards to suggest that because no-one has been able to prove who forged it (and when and how) that this strongly suggests the diary is genuine. I feel very confident that this is exactly what is being suggested here too. I'm fairly sure it's a rhetorical question.
                  As Jonathan has said, Adam Wood is the publisher of the book.

                  People make lots of claims on the message boards and the claim that the diary is genuine because nobody has identified who forged it is seriously flawed thinking. Why attribute it to Adam, who isn't noted for promoting daft ideas. Maybe the best thing to do is wait until the book is published, then one can read what is actually said and kick the stuffing out of it from a position of knowledge.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                    People make lots of claims on the message boards and the claim that the diary is genuine because nobody has identified who forged it is seriously flawed thinking. Why attribute it to Adam, who isn't noted for promoting daft ideas. Maybe the best thing to do is wait until the book is published, then one can read what is actually said and kick the stuffing out of it from a position of knowledge.
                    Those are the very two things I didn't do Paul! I didn't attribute the question to Adam (I took it as being part of the book blurb, deliberately not using the "quote" function to quote Adam in #7 - I didn't know who wrote it, and I still can't be sure he did) and I deliberately didn't make any comments about the book (or kick the stuffing out if it), only about the internal content of the blurb that Adam posted.

                    Within that blurb is a question:
                    "If it was a hoax, why hasn’t the proof of who forged it, and how and when, been forthcoming over the course of a quarter of a century?"

                    It doesn't matter whether this question is also asked in the book, it is being asked in the blurb. It's clearly a rhetorical question. It could only not be rhetorical if the book is going to tell us that the diary IS a hoax and is going to explain why the proof of who forged it, how and when, hasn't been forthcoming (until now). We know it's not going to do that. And, as you've said, as a rhetorical question, it is "seriously flawed thinking". My point is therefore valid.

                    I might add that you were the one speculating that this question is going to be answered in the book, not me! But if we are to be told in the book that the diary definitively was "a genuine Victorian document", written circa 1888/89, then the question, as asked, is superfluous. The answer is obvious! So why ask it?

                    Anyway, I did subsequently say that Adam (who I agree is not noted for promoting daft ideas) could clarify the issue if he wants to and he hasn't, which is up to him, but I think I am entitled to comment on the quality and internal logic of the blurb, which is all I have done.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      I suspect that it would be rather a long read, too.
                      They could call it "They All Love the False Facts of Jack."
                      Best Wishes,
                      Hunter
                      ____________________________________________

                      When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Hunter View Post
                        They could call it "They All Love the False Facts of Jack."
                        Please tell me you didn't spend too long thinking that one up?

                        Iconoclast
                        Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                          As Jonathan has said, Adam Wood is the publisher of the book.

                          People make lots of claims on the message boards and the claim that the diary is genuine because nobody has identified who forged it is seriously flawed thinking. Why attribute it to Adam, who isn't noted for promoting daft ideas. Maybe the best thing to do is wait until the book is published, then one can read what is actually said and kick the stuffing out of it from a position of knowledge.
                          I think we'll all find that it's a rather shameless facsimile of the original designed to make Smith a few bob. I doubt there's anything earth-shattering in there. Personally, I'll be quite happy with my facsimile. I'll put it next to my replica Jules Rimet trophy.

                          Iconoclast
                          Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                            Please tell me you didn't spend too long thinking that one up?

                            However long, it was too long

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                              Et cetera ...
                              Hey Davie Boy - as a regular proper publisher 'an all of books and that, would you have sold your soul and created the facsimile if you'd had the chance?

                              You could have got a nice little weekend in Bognor out of it, and nothing wrong with that say I.

                              Last edited by Iconoclast; 08-03-2017, 12:43 PM.
                              Iconoclast
                              Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                                Hey Davie Boy - as a regular proper publisher 'an all of books and that, would you have sold your soul and craeted the facsimile if you'd had the chance?

                                You could have got a nice little weekend in Bognor out of it, and nothing wrong with that say I.
                                I'm really not a "proper publisher" and I think the blurb is promising more than a mere facsimile of the diary text. The promise of a definitive answer as to when the diary was written, for example. As to the facsimile, it sounds like a high quality reproduction but I personally doubt I would be able to extract much useful information from "the variation of ink flows and pressures, the blots and blemishes, and the shade of the ink", even from the original.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X