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

[Mike J. G.]

And of course, Gareth, we all know that if you are writing a diary claiming to be a serial-killing cotton merchant of little talent, the first thing you must do is to write decent poetry and make it damned good, and the second is to write excellent prose.

Because if it ever sees the light of day that's the first thing the experts will look for.

Love,

Caz
X

But ironically, the believers all claim that this diary was far too sophisticated for a simple man. Let's all have our cake, and eat it, lol.

[Sam Flynn]

Why would a forger add something unknown? Well, to make it seem more believable. When lying/hoaxing, it is beneficial to add seemingly useless detail, it is done to add credibility.

As Pooh-Bah says in The Mikado, "Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative".

[Mike J. G.]

I bet your 'mate' and his family reckon you're a laugh a minute, Mike. How they must have chuckled.

Goodness me, you're such a scally it's a wonder you don't make a mint out of creating a literary hoax of your own that'll get 'em going for the next 25 years. You sound like a natural.

Love,

Caz
X

No worries were had, Caz, we all had a laugh about it later, and still do to this day, see we have a sense of humour about things, unlike some folk! The guy who wrote that faux diary certainly had a good sense of humour.

I wonder if I did invent a hoax, whether I could get you to shamelessly promote the book that argues against it being a hoax!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I never knew the origin of the phrase, HS. Thanks for that.

No problem Sam

[Mike J. G.]

You don't say, Mike.

Nobody ever thought of doing that before. Perhaps some of us should give it a go. What do you reckon?

Love,

Caz
X

I don't know, Caz, if you did it, I'd worry whether or not you could even reveal the details, as when you told me that dodgy story about knowing some random bloke from the Tavern in town who conveniently knew some obscure knowledge about it once being known as the Poste House, you couldn't tell me his name or give me any verifiable info about any of it. Funny, that.

[Mike J. G.]

I may also be nitpicking here, Mike, but it's 'I will', not 'I'll'.

Our diarist was a bit of a stranger to contractions. In fact you'll find hardly any in the text, which you may or may not find a trifle odd for anyone writing in the late 20th century and not having much of a clue. Yet they get one particular use of the humble apostrophe bang on, where even highly educated people fall down, where "Sir Jim" writes: 'I believe if chance prevails I will burn St. James's to the ground'.

Love,

Caz
X

Well, tbf, I knew it was "I will" , as in my post I suggested that "I shall" might've been more of a fitting term for the era, as opposed to "I will". No idea why I typed "I'll".

The problem in the writing is that we see "e" added to "post haste," IIRC, which strikes me as something a person of that era would not do, and seems more likely to be an automatic addition due to having to add an "e" to "Poste House", which is basic human error, like when typing a message and including a word you hear on the television while typing.

[Monty]

That's a bit harsh, Neil. You know that I'd be the last person to want to bring the field into disrepute. I'm just curious about the notes, that's all.

To quote my old PACE notes, Ignorance is no defence Gareth.

However as I'm sure you (and many others) are in bliss, and because I like you, your excuse is sufficient for me old chap.

Monty

[Mike J. G.]

"We're going to argue like it's 1999"

Oh god... the Diary ...again. Who'd have ever thought I'd miss Melvin Harris?



I find it amusing that it's the BOOK being published that's dismissed as this years cheap money grab, when there's so much tackier, money-grubbing Diary related events on offer. I mean if money-grubbing, promotion is your issue...

But I do agree, the lack of question answering is quite annoying.

For me, it's all silly, and it's all very much in shameless promotional taste: We know great things! Buy the book and attend the talks for details!

Very much in the average "I know who dunnit" style of Ripper yarn. Buy the book, wear the t-shirt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How easy is it to fool a handwriting expert? Not very, and as far as I'm aware, any attention brought to the handwriting of May and the diary have concluded that they do not match.

On the other hand, we've been told that the ink in the diary was capable of being both recent and old. Make of that what you will.

Some will ignore the former and go with their preferred version of the latter.

So you would have no problem creating a document that could fool an ion migration test that indicates when the ink was applied to the paper Mike?

[Mike J. G.]

Or feasible. If you'd genuinely found such a book at the site of a famous Liverpool murder, why would you want to get rid of it so quickly, if at all? Why didn't they show it to Paul Dodd?

I agree, and I think I mentioned yesterday that surely if they took it to "the university" in town, whoever spoke to them would've asked where'd you get it? What did the owner of the house say?

I mean, presumably, these electricians were totally dishonest thieves who intended to flog the book, but oddly took it to the university instead of a well-known antique bookstore on London road in town, not far from the uni (depending on which uni they're claiming it is).

So, either, the electricians were shameless profit-whores, which would tie in with them not telling Dodd and instead going to town, but makes no sense if they went to the uni instead of an antique bookstore, and then passed it to a supposed drunk in a pub in Anfield.

Makes about as much sense as a Milli Vanilli 2018 world tour.

[Observer]

Detail, Herlock. Why would a forger add something unknown? Well, to make it seem more believable. When lying/hoaxing, it is beneficial to add seemingly useless detail, it is done to add credibility.

By the late 1980's, which is when I believe the idea for the Diary was first formulated, a lot more was known about the ways of the serial killer. We invariably find that the one's who are caught and brought to justice have a fair few more victims to their tally than the police gave them credit for at the time of their crimes. The Yorkshire Ripper was one of those killers. I would expect an individual who wished to concoct a hoax where a serial killer is involved to be aware of this fact. Hence the Manchester murder which is featured in the Diary.

A contemporary hoaxer would know little if anything about the ways of the serial killer. I doubt he had the capacity to formulate the Manchester attack, and include it in the Diary. In short, again, I believe it to be a modern idea.

[Mike J. G.]

As Pooh-Bah says in The Mikado, "Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative".

Exactly. There's a good take on this concept in a now defunct comedy show, in which the couple attempts to lie to their friends so as to get out of a party they do not wish to attend, and they make note of how a good lie should include otherwise bland or seemingly unrelated detail.

Everyone has done this to some extent or other when making an excuse.

Awh, I couldn't go in the end, I was a bit ill, been up all night coughing and sneezing. Woke up today and went to the doctors, I saw Bill on my way, but he didn't see me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For me, it's all silly, and it's all very much in shameless promotional taste: We know great things! Buy the book and attend the talks for details!

Very much in the average "I know who dunnit" style of Ripper yarn. Buy the book, wear the t-shirt.

Doesn't every new book do that? Why does a book connected with the diary attract the kind of anger that a book promoting Conan Doyle or Robert Mann doesn't?

Do you not think that there's even a possibility that Robert Smith might actually believe the diary to be genuine?

[Mike J. G.]

So you would have no problem creating a document that could fool an ion migration test that indicates when the ink was applied to the paper Mike?

Herlock, I do believe that I've been over the concept of people hoodwinking "science".

It matters not one bit whether the forger presumed he could or would fool anyone, if it didn't fool anyone, what would it matter? If it did, back-of-the-net!

Whoever wrote the diary didn't care one bit whether the handwriting matched the man in question, so why would they bother sweating about whether the ink could fool anyone?

The fact remains, as others before me have mentioned, that the ink is a non-starter, seeing as we have differing results on the age of it.

[Sam Flynn]

However as I'm sure you (and many others) are in bliss, and because I like you, your excuse is sufficient for me old chap.

Nice one, Neil