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

[Mike J. G.]

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.

Very much so. Not only that, but the number of local crime books coming out between the early 80's and early 90's were rocketing.

We had, and still do have, local mysteries/tales being featured in local papers each week, and Slemen even had one in the Merseymart for a number of years, as well as a weekly slot on the radio, Billy Butler's show.

Me and my dad have collected pretty much all of these books that have been released over the years, involving local crime, local pubs, and local history in general. You can find them in all relevant local stores.

[Mike J. G.]

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?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, seeing as I've already mentioned how a lot of Ripper literature seems to be promoted in such a way.

The subject here is the diary, and there's a new book on it, so my comment was pretty much entirely valid.

My cares are not vested in who believes what about which, my stance is that it's a hoax, and a recent one, and if anyone believes otherwise, then show me the money. I'm not seeing much in the way of "money" from anyone.

[Hunter]

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.

There apparently is a t-shirt being offered now too, but in no way affiliated with the OP of this thread.

[Observer]

I would expect that Liverpool Central Library had an extensive true crime section shortly before the emergence of the Diary.

[Mike J. G.]

There apparently is a t-shirt being offered now too, but in no way affiliated with the OP of this thread.

I can't say that I'm surprised, tbh, lol.

I just hope it includes the slogan: I want to believe.

[Mike J. G.]

I would expect that Liverpool Central Library had an extensive true crime section shortly before the emergence of the Diary.

It did indeed, and still does, as does every other library here, including the famous Picton Reading Rooms, which are now a part of central library, and were once a valuable resource for any local historian or writer, including Whittington-Egan, who used it often when writing for his many books.

E.T.A.

I myself have been to central and have browsed the excellent old newspapers on file, and this, as I've mentioned previously, is where I inquired about the existence of another pub known as the Poste House, and found zilch, nada, naught. Even asking staff, who are more than helpful and very knowledgeable, turned up nothing. But if we're to believe Caz, the old Tavern in town was once known as the Poste House, it's just that there's literally no evidence of this anywhere in this city, but I'm told she had it on good word from a random man in a pub whose name she cannot provide.

[Sam Flynn]

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?

That very test was actually fooled when it was used to date the Mormon "salamander" letters, in which case it emerged that the forger had attempted to artificially age the documents in question. The net result was to throw the ion-migration test's theoretical accuracy of +/- 20 years out to +/- 40 years. That would, of course, not be enough of a discrepancy to allow a 1980s document to be mistaken for one produced in the 1880s, but I've yet to see any proof that other confounding factors (whether wilful tampering, type of paper or whatever) could not compromise the accuracy of the test still further. Ion-migration testing of ink was a comparatively new technique in the 1990s, and may well have been refined in the two decades since, but I am not convinced that it was entirely foolproof at the time the diary was first tested.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, seeing as I've already mentioned how a lot of Ripper literature seems to be promoted in such a way.

The subject here is the diary, and there's a new book on it, so my comment was pretty much entirely valid.

My cares are not vested in who believes what about which, my stance is that it's a hoax, and a recent one, and if anyone believes otherwise, then show me the money. I'm not seeing much in the way of "money" from anyone.

So Robert Smith has mentioned/reviewed the scientific provenance in his book and stated that there is zero evidence of forgery and that there is nothing to preclude the diary from originating in 1888/9 that is invalid because 'science can be fooled.' Why do we bother using science at all? I wonder if you would talk of science being fooled if a scientist had said that he could prove the diary a forgery?

[Observer]

It did indeed, and still does, as does every other library here, including the famous Picton Reading Rooms, which are now a part of central library, and were once a valuable resource for any local historian or writer, including Whittington-Egan, who used it often when writing for his many books.

I've heard they do a good line in books devoted to obscure poetry too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That very test was actually fooled when it was used to date the Mormon "salamander" letters, in which case it emerged that the forger had attempted to artificially age the documents in question. The net result was to throw the ion-migration test's theoretical accuracy of +/- 20 years out to +/- 40 years. That would, of course, not be enough of a discrepancy to allow a 1980s document to be mistaken for one produced in the 1880s, but I've yet to see any proof that other confounding factors (whether wilful tampering, type of paper or whatever) could not compromise the accuracy of the test still further. Ion-migration testing of ink was a comparatively new technique in the 1990s, and may well have been refined in the two decades since, but I am not convinced that it was entirely foolproof at the time the diary was first tested.

Thanks for that Sam. As you say, it's not a 100 year difference. The question is though, how difficult would it be? Would a man like Mike Barrett have been up to it?

[Mike J. G.]

So Robert Smith has mentioned/reviewed the scientific provenance in his book and stated that there is zero evidence of forgery and that there is nothing to preclude the diary from originating in 1888/9 that is invalid because 'science can be fooled.' Why do we bother using science at all? I wonder if you would talk of science being fooled if a scientist had said that he could prove the diary a forgery?

Here's the thing, guys selling books tend to want to sell those books.

If Smith actually has concrete evidence that this diary is genuine, and by that I mean written by Maybrick in 1888/89, then it's ironic that the evidence is nowhere to be found.


I don't really understand the odd question "why bother using science at all?" and I sincerely hope you had your tongue planted firmly in your cheek when typing that.

Science is about testing things, looking for patterns that are repeatable using certain specific methods.

If Smith has indeed found evidence that completely refutes the hoax claims, then I'm intrigued to see how he got past the handwriting issue.

I'm assuming he's had the text studied and found to be that of Maybrick's, otherwise, he's not even discovered a brass fart.

[Observer]

E.T.A.

I myself have been to central and have browsed the excellent old newspapers on file, and this, as I've mentioned previously, is where I inquired about the existence of another pub known as the Poste House, and found zilch, nada, naught. Even asking staff, who are more than helpful and very knowledgeable, turned up nothing. But if we're to believe Caz, the old Tavern in town was once known as the Poste House, it's just that there's literally no evidence of this anywhere in this city, but I'm told she had it on good word from a random man in a pub whose name she cannot provide.

Par for the course really.

[Mike J. G.]

I've heard they do a good line in books devoted to obscure poetry too.

There's an antique bookshop on London road that has been around a good while, and deals in some very obscure and old books, and also has a plethora of hard-to-find local poetry.

http://www.henrybohnbooksliverpool.co.uk/

[Observer]

Hey doesn't the Diary include a decidedly obscure poem?

[Mike J. G.]

Hey doesn't the Diary include a decidedly obscure poem?

Obscure poem, details found in books by an author Barrett was reading, items worded the same as it is in lists published a century later, out-of-date phrases and pubs, conflicting handwriting to May's actual known hand, etc.

But hey, the ink was shown to be old, by at least one source, we can just forget the other source which claimed the ink was capable of being modern.

It's all about picking and choosing what we fancy believing, that's how stuff works, afterall. Oh, wait, it isn't.

Evidence for it being genuine? Anyone?

Is that a tumbleweed?