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

[Iconoclast]

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.

But sat next to your replica Jules Rimet trophy? Just imagine it ...

I'm expecting nothing whatsoever new for my £28 or whatever it was - I just fancy having a copy.

I might indulge in a little irony and use the handwriting to base a fake journal of Albert Einstein on. "I was taking refreshment at the Poste House when - streuth - a brief formula crossed my mind". If I use Google translator, I could make a mint, buy a greenhouse, retire to Bognor, and laugh heartily for 25 years as you are all fooled by my genius!

[David Orsam]

You working for the Bognor Marketing Board these days?

[PaulB]

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.

David,
You are absolutely correct that you did not attribute the words to Adam. On the other hand, the blurb was posted by Adam and he didn't disassociate himself from it as those who come across new book information on Amazon or wherever usually do. I also can't recall that he's posted book blurbs (other than Mango's). But you didn't attribute the words to him, and that's fair enough.

I didn't say that you had kicked the stuffing out of the book, I simply said that it would be better the read the book, after which it might be clearer what the question meant. If it means what you think it means - that the identity of the author having remained unknown for 125 years was somehow in favour of the diary being genuine - then you could kick the stuffing out of it (if so moved, of course).

However, the blurb states that one of the book's objectives was to offer an assessment of what has been 'discovered about the physical artifact' since it emerged 25-years ago. It then asked two questions, one of which concerns why the identity of the forger hasn't hitherto been revealed. The blurb then rounds up by saying that the book reveals who wrote it, where it was written, and where it's been for 125 years... If they know who wrote the diary, I assume they have some idea why the name hasn't come to light for 125 years.

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.

Do we know it's not going to do that? I get the impression that that's exactly what it's going to do. I would imagine that if the book was going to reveal that the author was the Whitechapel murderer or anybody well-known, the blurb would leave us in no doubt.

But it's all speculation until the book is published.

[David Orsam]

Do we know it's not going to do that?

Yes we do Paul.

Look at the blurb. There are only two options:

"The diary is either a genuine document written circa 1888/89 or it is a modern fake."

We know it is not going to be argued that it is a modern fake because we are told that the diary team is confident that it is "a genuine Victorian document".

So that means, QED, it must be "a genuine document written circa 1888/89".

If it's a "genuine document" it's not a hoax is it?

[Iconoclast]

You working for the Bognor Marketing Board these days?

Needs must, young man ...

[Henry Flower]

I have begun forging the Diary of Mike Barrett, in which he confesses (again) to having been the notorious unidentified forger of the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

I intend to retire to Bognor on the proceeds.

[David Orsam]

There is certainly a day trip to Bognor in that book Henry (off peak travel only mind).

[Iconoclast]

I have begun forging the Diary of Mike Barrett, in which he confesses (again) to having been the notorious unidentified forger of the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

I intend to retire to Bognor on the proceeds.

If you do, please don't disturb me whilst I am laughing heartily for 25 years. I can be easily distracted.

[Abby Normal]

I have begun forging the Diary of Mike Barrett, in which he confesses (again) to having been the notorious unidentified forger of the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

I intend to retire to Bognor on the proceeds.

now that's humorous! : )

[Abby Normal]

Yes we do Paul.

Look at the blurb. There are only two options:

"The diary is either a genuine document written circa 1888/89 or it is a modern fake."

We know it is not going to be argued that it is a modern fake because we are told that the diary team is confident that it is "a genuine Victorian document".

So that means, QED, it must be "a genuine document written circa 1888/89".

If it's a "genuine document" it's not a hoax is it?

exactly. and like to know how they ruled out it being an old hoax.

[PaulB]

Yes we do Paul.

Look at the blurb. There are only two options:

"The diary is either a genuine document written circa 1888/89 or it is a modern fake."

We know it is not going to be argued that it is a modern fake because we are told that the diary team is confident that it is "a genuine Victorian document".

So that means, QED, it must be "a genuine document written circa 1888/89".

If it's a "genuine document" it's not a hoax is it?

Hi David,
The blurb says a "genuine Victorian document". There's a big difference between saying the document was penned in 1888/89 and saying it was penned by James Maybrick. If it was wasn't written by James Maybrick, the document is a hoax. In fact, if it was written by James Maybrick and he wasn't responsible for the murders then the document is a hoax. It would be a hoax, but nevertheless be a genuine artefact from 1888/89 - a "genuine Victorian document".

[David Orsam]

Hi David,
The blurb says a "genuine Victorian document". There's a big difference between saying the document was penned in 1888/89 and saying it was penned by James Maybrick. If it was wasn't written by James Maybrick, the document is a hoax. In fact, if it was written by James Maybrick and he wasn't responsible for the murders then the document is a hoax. It would be a hoax, but nevertheless be a genuine artefact from 1888/89 - a "genuine Victorian document".

Hi Paul,

No, I'm afraid, that argument doesn't work.

Firstly, the blurb actually says it must either be a hoax or "a genuine document written circa 1888/89". Note the expression "genuine document". It's only elsewhere that the expression "genuine Victorian document" is used" (when saying that the diary team is "confident" that this is what it is). To the extent there is a discrepancy between the two expressions, that is the very point I am making about the internal logic of the blurb.

Secondly, and critically, the question in the blurb that we are discussing is this:

"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?"

So by "hoax" it is evident that the blurb is referring to a forgery. Otherwise the question, which speaks of the person "who forged it", is both redundant and nonsensical.

So they cannot possibly be talking about James Maybrick authoring it as a hoax because he can't have forged a document supposedly written by himself!

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

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

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

As a "one off" offer no doubt? ��


Amazing this Diary..first it is "written" by one Maybrick..then lo and behold 23 years later it is written by his brother.

Two men say they are Jesus. One of them must be wrong.
Now.. it strikes me clearly. Somebody has tried to make money out of this Diary.
And it just doesn't stop. Hence..ANOTHER book with claims.

"Oh what a tangled web of lies they weave"... I hear being called out from the bavk of the room. The merry-go-round must be kept turning.

This wheel fell off the wagon years ago. And pushing the idea now wont help one iota.



Phil

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

No, I'm afraid, that argument doesn't work.

Firstly, the blurb actually says it must either be a hoax or "a genuine document written circa 1888/89". Note the expression "genuine document". It's only elsewhere that the expression "genuine Victorian document" is used" (when saying that the diary team is "confident" that this is what it is). To the extent there is a discrepancy between the two expressions, that is the very point I am making about the internal logic of the blurb.

Secondly, and critically, the question in the blurb that we are discussing is this:

"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?"

So by "hoax" it is evident that the blurb is referring to a forgery. Otherwise the question, which speaks of the person "who forged it", is both redundant and nonsensical.

So they cannot possibly be talking about James Maybrick authoring it as a hoax because he can't have forged a document supposedly written by himself!

I very much doubt that Adam ever thought his blurb would be subjected to such detailed over-analysis. But if you want to believe that Adam is trying to say the diary is provably the genuine work of the Whitechapl murderer, then I hope you are right and that he is. I suspect, though, that Adam is too canny a businessman not to appreciate the sales potential of such a claim. I suspect that "genuine document" means a document penned in 1888/89.That would be pretty exciting in itself.

[David Orsam]

I very much doubt that Adam ever thought his blurb would be subjected to such detailed over-analysis.

Possibly not Paul but it has only been subjected to such "over-analysis" because you challenged my original analysis.

I think my original analysis was reasonable and the points I made were valid.

They are exactly the type of points I would have made to Adam had I been working for Mango books and he had shown me a draft of the blurb before publication. Then it would have been up to him if he cared about it.

I suspect that "genuine document" means a document penned in 1888/89.That would be pretty exciting in itself.

So you think the book is going to reveal the diary to be a genuine forgery?

Extremely exciting, I agree.