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

[Graham]

In defence of Herlock Sholmes, I agree with him that the Diary, albeit a fake, if it is a fake, is not an amateurish fake. I mean, not quite in the style of a schoolboy faking a letter from his Mom that he's sick and can't go to school.
As to the claimed anachronisms, I'm not so sure. For how long must a word or phrase exist verbally before it's rendered into print? I haven't a clue. Yet there are words in Shakespeare which to our eyes and ears seem 'modern', but which may have been old and in general verbal use even in Shakespeare's time.

What kinda bothers me about the Diary is that its prose just seems awkward and even clumsy. OK, you might say that it reflects how Victorians spoke and wrote, but my grand-dad, who I remember very well, was Victorian, and he spoke and wrote much the same as I do. The Diary to me seems to be written in a kind of 'stage Victorian', for want of a better expression....I mean, did real Victorians converse in a style akin to the language in, for example, Oscar Wilde's plays? I doubt it.

Graham

[Graham]

I'm not sure I appreciate your condescending tone of voice. However, there is a letter of Maybrick's reproduced in Paul Feldman's book "Jack The Ripper The Final Chapter" page 276. It was written from the SS Baltic, and signed Jas Maybrick.

To which I referred in a previous post, Post 918 to be precise, if you could have been bothered to read it. And who's being 'condescending'? I was merely asking you a question, that's all. Tut.

Graham

[Graham]

To be fair, it's not so much the skill of the forger as the effort into analysis that is evidenced here. The world had a vested interest in the Hitler diaries. Nobody really gives two turds for funding a comprehensive testing of the Maybrick diary...or is willing to put it to the rigors of testing.

Couldn't agree more.

Graham

[Mike J. G.]

In defence of Herlock Sholmes, I agree with him that the Diary, albeit a fake, if it is a fake, is not an amateurish fake. I mean, not quite in the style of a schoolboy faking a letter from his Mom that he's sick and can't go to school.
As to the claimed anachronisms, I'm not so sure. For how long must a word or phrase exist verbally before it's rendered into print? I haven't a clue. Yet there are words in Shakespeare which to our eyes and ears seem 'modern', but which may have been old and in general verbal use even in Shakespeare's time.

What kinda bothers me about the Diary is that its prose just seems awkward and even clumsy. OK, you might say that it reflects how Victorians spoke and wrote, but my grand-dad, who I remember very well, was Victorian, and he spoke and wrote much the same as I do. The Diary to me seems to be written in a kind of 'stage Victorian', for want of a better expression....I mean, did real Victorians converse in a style akin to the language in, for example, Oscar Wilde's plays? I doubt it.

Graham

I think we can argue for days on whether we think it's amateurish or not, but as far it being something beyond the capabilities of a common man/woman, I don't really see anything in there that impresses me, other than the imagination of the person who wrote it. I can admire it for its attempt at lacing fact with fiction, but other than that, it's hard to pin-point anything that I find truly worthy of applause and as being beyond the capability of an average person.

Average people do exceptional things all the time. What we consider to be exceptional tends to differ from person-to-person, though.

[Mike J. G.]

Honestly, its been so long since I've read the final chapter I've completely forgotten.

think the book is in the attic... up there tomorrow digging out some 80's putes (not Amstrads...hate em)

A huge clue about all of this would be evident in the writing itself, and we have a case where a piece of writing, supposedly May's, was compared to the diary, and found to not match.

In an ideal world, we'd have another piece of writing with which to compare, but it's not clear that we do.

So, we either are content that the two pieces do not match, or we ignore it, but if we ignore it, we cannot possibly conclude that it's certified fact that May wrote it or that he was the Ripper.

So I kind of have to wonder about how anyone can safely conclude it to be the "real deal" like we're hearing about re: this new book.

It can't possibly be conclusive if we can't even compare the handwriting conclusively.

[John G]

Or.....it was a spelling error that he repeated, as the evidence shows when he did it with the phrase 'post haste'. As people sometimes do. But of course, that's impossible!

It's pretty obvious that everyone who either thinks the diary is genuine or even allows of a slight possibility that it might be are all gullible idiots. Diary discussion really should be avoided! Nothing in ripperology attracts such strident bias. I should have learned my lesson and avoided this thread.
Personally, my life isn't changed one bit by the diary being genuine or not. I don't claim to be an expert in anything but I've read all the books (including the new one unlike some) and am not convinced that it has been conclusively disproven (anywhere near so.) 'Amateurish?' - no way. Mike Barrett the master forger 25 years later and it's still around. Hitler diary - 6 months.
I'll leave everyone to their comfortable certainty

The Hitler Diaries were good enough to initially fool the eminent World War Two historian Hugh Trevor Roper (Lord Dacre), who knew Hitler's handwriting; he declared them to be, "The most important historical record of the decade." However, he was wrongly informed that they had been tested.

The big advantage that a JtR forger would have is that it's so difficult, with the passage of time, to disprove anything, particularly when you consider the amount of contradictory, and sometimes questionable, source material (Steve's Bucks Row project clearly illustrates this.)

Of course, that is no doubt the fundamental reason why Casebook threads end up being very long and contentious!

[Henry Flower]

First he'd have to prove he was the angel Gabriel, then he'd have to prove God was God and then he'd have to prove the signature was Gods before I'd lend credence.

I would want to know why an invisible entity whose name is Yahweh has suddenly started signing documents 'God'. That, for me, is the first evidence that Gabriel is possibly either a hoaxer, or has been hoaxed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you totally ignored everything I've typed re: the handwriting and how it is analyzed?

I'm starting to wonder whether you're actually interested in figuring this out or not, mate.

What Observer said was correct, a person cannot just change their style at a whim, hence why the entire science of studying such things even bloody exists and flourishes, lol.

I am. That's why I try to keep an open mind on the issue. To you it's an 'obvious' forgery. To many others it's not (or at least in my case it might not be)
There's nothing wrong with debate of course but some things can be interpreted in more than one way but if there's one thing that puts me off this subject it's when people who genuinely believe it's a forgery (a reasonable position to take) constantly deride those who either disagree or even admit to having 'slight doubts.' As I've said before I don't object to anyone's opinion but appears that some object to mine with a 'how can you not understand or accept this,' tone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you totally ignored everything I've typed re: the handwriting and how it is analyzed?

I'm starting to wonder whether you're actually interested in figuring this out or not, mate.

What Observer said was correct, a person cannot just change their style at a whim, hence why the entire science of studying such things even bloody exists and flourishes, lol.

So you are actually saying that it's impossible for someone to change their handwriting style!! A proper forger can. Schitzophrenics do. I can. Possibly certain traits can be spotted by the debated science of handwriting analysis but as this hasn't been applied to the diary we can't know either way in this case. You may say that's it's unlikely, or even unlikely in the extreme, but it can't be impossible?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, something you keep avoiding is the fact that the Tavern, nor any other pub in this city, is on record as being known by the name given in the diary, besides the pub that exists today, lol.

It's funny to see so many people talking about the Tavern, a place that no Scouser I've ever come across has ever known to be called "the Post House".

It's all about probability, not "comfortable certainties," and as a Holmes fan, it's astounding that you show such a lack of understanding about such things, no offense.

No offence at all at the second use of 'laugh out loud' at one of my posts. I know many pubs, as I can't believe that you don't, that have nicknames, I know a guy who called a local pub 'the kennel' because the owner kept 3 large dogs. As far as I know he was the only person that used that name. It's not in writing or in any records. So it can't be completely impossible that a man could call a pub called The Post Office Tavern, the Post House, especially when the two phrases were interchangeable in Victorian times. I'm not saying it's proven. I'm not saying case closed. I'm saying that it can't be impossible. If that deserves a lol then so be it.

[Graham]

I would want to know why an invisible entity whose name is Yahweh has suddenly started signing documents 'God'. That, for me, is the first evidence that Gabriel is possibly either a hoaxer, or has been hoaxed.

Henry, believe me, it's true. I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to find where God banks, so far with no success. I've tried Lloyds, no good. They have Mephistopheles on their books, they're willing to admit that, but not God.

Graham

[John G]

There are two serious anomalies with the diary: "Poste House", which even Shirley Harrison accepts is unresolved, and "one-off instance", which effectively sinks the diary.

The problem is there will always be people who will reject any challenge that doesn't provide absolute proof, and that, of course, is very much to the forger's advantage.

[GUT]

[/B]

So you are actually saying that it's impossible for someone to change their handwriting style!! A proper forger can. Schitzophrenics do. I can. Possibly certain traits can be spotted by the debated science of handwriting analysis but as this hasn't been applied to the diary we can't know either way in this case. You may say that's it's unlikely, or even unlikely in the extreme, but it can't be impossible?

Handwriting analysis isn't a debated science.

Forensic document examination is a well established long accepted field of science.

Graphology (telling a person's personality from their handwriting) is akin to witchcraft.

[Mike J. G.]

I am. That's why I try to keep an open mind on the issue. To you it's an 'obvious' forgery. To many others it's not (or at least in my case it might not be)
There's nothing wrong with debate of course but some things can be interpreted in more than one way but if there's one thing that puts me off this subject it's when people who genuinely believe it's a forgery (a reasonable position to take) constantly deride those who either disagree or even admit to having 'slight doubts.' As I've said before I don't object to anyone's opinion but appears that some object to mine with a 'how can you not understand or accept this,' tone.

I've stated many times that I am willing to change my stance provided that there is sufficient evidence there to do so.

For me, there's nothing wrong in calling bull when we consider these things:

Dodgy provenance? Check.

Inaccurate details? Check.

Confusing timelines? Check.

Evidence of lies from the people involved? Check.

Improbable details? Check.

And it goes on and on.

Frankly, it's down to the people choosing to believe it to prove that it's worth believing in.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is not on those who disbelieve in the unbelievable to prove that the unbelievable is incorrect.

[Mike J. G.]

[/B]

So you are actually saying that it's impossible for someone to change their handwriting style!! A proper forger can. Schitzophrenics do. I can. Possibly certain traits can be spotted by the debated science of handwriting analysis but as this hasn't been applied to the diary we can't know either way in this case. You may say that's it's unlikely, or even unlikely in the extreme, but it can't be impossible?

As I've mentioned, there exists a science in which these things are routinely gone over with a fine-tooth comb.

You say that people can disguise their handwriting, and I agree, to an extent.

What people cannot do is maintain enough deceit to go through 60 pages without giving their true selves away, and this is demonstrable in many cases and has been shown to be true.

I've yet to see any evidence that a person can totally mask their style of hand in every detail, and I'll have to ask you to provide me with some evidence for what you say is true. Can you provide any?