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

[Mike J. G.]

It's too clever, Mike. On a scale where your "funny little rhyme" scores 10, I'd score the diary's poems at 3, or 4 at the very most. This is purely on a comparative basis, of course, but I don't think it's an unfair comparison. The diary's poems are incredibly poor, and its prose isn't of a much better standard either.

Cheers, Sam. I do try! lol

So, what we're left with is a diary that isn't really all that that remarkable in terms of the content, or how it was penned, despite the views of the believers.

It honestly comes down to people simply wanting to believe in it, and who can blame them? It's mystery, drama, romance, horror, thriller...all in one tome, that neatly wraps up the world's most enduring murder-mystery, and adds a little story to go along with it.

I'm just surprised there's not been a Guy Richie movie already!

[Abby Normal]

It's time for my poem again, me thinks!

The good Sir Jim,
he wasn't dim,
he invented expressions,
such as "one-off," he did.

He had two types of hand,
with which he would fool all the land.
A walking enigma, that you'd never understand.

"Tin match-box empty", he may well have listed.
He even drank in the 'Poste House' before it ever existed!

He was the Torso Man, and Saucy Jack,
he knew his way around London in the bitter pitch black.

The good Sir Jim,
Jack of all trades,
arsenic, strychnine and a butcher's blade.

A diary he wrote,
to explain all his deeds,
satisfying the questions and quelling the needs.

So a salute to Sir Jim,
please raise a toast,
to the fabled James Maybrick,
and his blotchy-faced ghost.


There's no way I could've written this, btw, I'm just a simple lad from Liverpool.

Brilliant!

[Mike J. G.]

Thank you, Abby

I try to stay away from writing Ripper poetry as I don't really condone it unless it's not in bad taste. But I've a soft spot for Sir Jim, so I had to pen something, and this seemed rather fitting for all of the fans of the saga of Battlecrease.

I do have one on the Torso's, and Spring-Heeled Jack. Maybe I'll get the chance to use them if we somehow figure out that Maybrick was involved in those, too!

Did Sir Jim own any industrial-style springs?!

[Herlock Sholmes]

History is rife with examples that people seem to want to avoid acknowledging, though, Herlock.

Arthur Conan Doyle was fooled by a couple of little kids, lest we forget. Roger Patterson continues to fool scientists who want to be fooled to this very day, including the late Grover Krantz, Jeff Meldrum and many other notable names in science.

A hoax is devised to create deception. Deception is what happened.

Accepted Mike. We can also show the desperate lengths that Creationist will go to deny Evolution.

I can only give my own opinion. Forgery it might be. Amateurish one....no. To be honest the only thing that bothers me about these debates Mike are the 'how can you be so stupid as to not see this obvious forgery' attitude that unfortunately tends to pervade.

[Mike J. G.]

Accepted Mike. We can also show the desperate lengths that Creationist will go to deny Evolution.

I can only give my own opinion. Forgery it might be. Amateurish one....no. To be honest the only thing that bothers me about these debates Mike are the 'how can you be so stupid as to not see this obvious forgery' attitude that unfortunately tends to pervade.

People will believe what they will. For me, I just sincerely do not see anything in the diary that would make me believe that it took someone of more intelligence than the common bloke from an Anfield pub.

I don't think people are stupid to believe that Maybrick wrote it, or that it took a good level of wit and intelligence, but I do think that those people are overlooking a lot of basic things, such as probabilities and chance.

I once convinced my mate to pull up his floorboards and go hunting with a pellet-gun for some kind of burrowing wild animal, it went on for hours and his family got involved. There were people moving furniture about and shining torches into the abyss. It was nothing more than me clicking my toes on the floor inside my boots.

People are easily fooled, by the most foolish of folk

[Pcdunn]

Something's afoot on Sesame Street...

And his evil sidekick coachman Bert.

To say nothing of Bert and Ernie's mysterious neighbor, the Count!

[Observer]

They did, although they were pretty new-fangled in the 1880s and by no means as numerous as they would later become. Be that as it may, you could well have found another anachronistic expression; I'd like to know when "giving someone a call" became part of the casual vernacular.

Edit: I found a history of telephony in Britain here http://www.britishtelephones.com/histuk.htm. It states, among other useful bits of info, that there were 13,000 telephones in use in Britain in 1884, and the first "long distance" trial took place in 1885 between London and - you guessed it - Liverpool. The Diary's lucky streak continues... even if its use of the expression "give her a call" still strikes me as potentially too "modern" for 1888.

I think a case can be made out for the phrase "I'll give her a call" being used in the Diary as "I'll go and give her a call", that is literally knock on her door. Used even in that manner it still seems too modern for 1888.

[Pcdunn]

Questions, Questions...

I also find the idea that the university couldn't/wouldn't comment on what was brought in to be highly dubious. What possible reason could there be for any sensitivity? They're not the CIA, they're Liverpool university. Maybrick is deceased, and thus data-protection and the likes would not apply.

Interesting. Suppose the "old documents" were the manuscript of the "Diary", written in longhand (thus needing to be re-typed on a typewriter or word processor for ease in reading), which the workmen found and took to the university? They could certainly deny having found the item presented to the world as the Maybrick Diary, because it wasn't in that format when they removed it.

Now, if the (presumably fictional) manuscript had been found at Battlecrease (not necessarily under the floorboards), we are still left to wonder:
-- Who wrote it?
-- Why was it hidden?
-- Was it found earlier than the date claimed by Mike B.? If so, had he been pondering about getting his hands on it and faking the diary in a Victorian-era book for awhile?

Then again, the story about it coming from a Battlecrease servant may well be true-- with the caveat that the manuscript still wasn't in a book, nor a true document of Maybrick's.

[Mike J. G.]

Interesting. Suppose the "old documents" were the manuscript of the "Diary", written in longhand (thus needing to be re-typed on a typewriter or word processor for ease in reading), which the workmen found and took to the university? They could certainly deny having found the item presented to the world as the Maybrick Diary, because it wasn't in that format when they removed it.

Now, if the (presumably fictional) manuscript had been found at Battlecrease (not necessarily under the floorboards), we are still left to wonder:
-- Who wrote it?
-- Why was it hidden?
-- Was it found earlier than the date claimed by Mike B.? If so, had he been pondering about getting his hands on it and faking the diary in a Victorian-era book for awhile?

Then again, the story about it coming from a Battlecrease servant may well be true-- with the caveat that the manuscript still wasn't in a book, nor a true document of Maybrick's.

It's all really too hard to say.

There are too many uncertainties, and though Kaz would have us believe that they're all conveniently covered in this new book, I have my doubts.

If I'm giving my honest opinion, I'd say that I'm not sold on the idea that any diary was taken from Battlecrease by the electricians (almost makes me think of a Clive Barker novel to type that!) and that it seems more than likely that if anything was taken to the university, it was more likely to be something unrelated to the diary, and possibly just an old book, or some kind of document, either related to James and co' or not.

There's a lot lacking in the claim that the diary itself was found at Battlecrease, and that this, for sure, is what was taken to the uni'.

I'm unsure why there's this air of secrecy relating to what was taken in to the uni', seeing as it didn't belong to the people taking it there in the first place.

Imho, if they took it to the uni' (whatever department or even building is unclear) then the person they spoke to (also unclear) would obviously ask where did it come from? Did you tell the owner? What did he say? And what could the men who took it say? we didn't tell him, mate, we half-inched it!

There's just so many gaps in this "provenance" that it's not worth spending the money on the book to bother reading, imo.

[Sam Flynn]

I think a case can be made out for the phrase "I'll give her a call" being used in the Diary as "I'll go and give her a call", that is literally knock on her door. Used even in that manner it still seems too modern for 1888.

Indeed, and it's not as if anyone can knock on the door of Buckingham Palace and ask to speak to the Queen. "I'll give her a call" is, it seems to me, being used in the off-hand, unthinking manner of someone used to employing the phrase on a daily basis.

(Incidentally, the phrase "I'll give him/her a call" in any sense doesn't turn up much before the mid-20th Century.)

[Mike J. G.]

The only two logical reasons for the men "involved" to deny said involvement, would be that they were either worried about having nicked it and taken it from the property, which may or may not land them in a bit of bother, or that they literally didn't have anything to do with it.

There's no other decent reason to think that these men would deny involvement. It seems unlikely that they were shying away from any spotlight.

Seems like it'd be beneficial for all for someone to track the men down, if they're still here, and hopefully they are, and ask them what the sodding deal is.

[Mike J. G.]

Indeed, and it's not as if anyone can knock on the door of Buckingham Palace and ask to speak to the Queen. "I'll give her a call" is, it seems to me, being used in the off-hand, unthinking manner of someone used to employing the phrase on a daily basis.

(Incidentally, the phrase "I'll give him/her a call" in any sense doesn't turn up much before the mid-20th Century.)

I may be nitpicking here, but it seems to me like a more fitting word for the period would've been shall or even possibly should/would.

I'll give her a call, to me, anyway, seems a bit modern, not super modern, but not really 1888.

Just my opinion.

[Sam Flynn]

I'll give her a call, to me, anyway, seems a bit modern, not super modern, but not really 1888.

It would appear to be reasonably super-modern, Mike. And the manner in which it's used I find telling; it seems to be a throw-away comment, like someone today would say "I'll text her".

Not me, by the way: I send texts, I don't "text". It takes quite some time for me to accept a noun being used as a verb. For the same reason, I don't "party" either

[Henry Flower]

Abberline says, he was never amazed,
I did my work with such honour.
For his decree
he had to agree,
I deserve at least an honour so all for a whim,
I can now rise Sir Jim

[...]

Victoria, Victoria
The queen of them all.
When it comes to Sir Jack,
She knows nothing at all.
Who knows, perhaps one day
I will give her a call

Something piqued my attention here. The Queen, the corrupt Establishment, Honours being granted... The Queen knowing 'nothing at all' - and the word 'decree'. Had someone recently watched the excellent 1979 Ripper movie Murder By Decree perhaps, before penning this doggerel? Just a passing thought.

And would a Victorian not have described Victoria as 'Queen of us all'? Who does he mean by 'them'? Not.... the Victorians.... surely?

[Sam Flynn]

Abberline says, he was never amazed,
I did my work with such honour.
For his decree
he had to agree...

Something piqued my attention here. The Queen, the corrupt Establishment, Honours being granted... The Queen knowing 'nothing at all' - and the word 'decree'. Had someone recently watched the excellent 1979 Ripper movie Murder By Decree perhaps, before penning this doggerel?

That might explain why the pointless word "decree" appears here ("for his decree he had to agree" - eh?) but I think the "political" allusions you suggest (the royals, corrupt establishment...) are rather too clever given the rest of the diary's contents.

Apropos movies, specifically, I certainly detect influences from film and TV in the diary; Murder By Decree hadn't occurred to me before, but I wouldn't be surprised.