Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    People have long known that artificially ageing forged documents might be a useful technique in disguising a hoax, and some of the techniques for doing so. However, people are generally less aware of the subtle changes in language, or when a given word or phrase starts being used in a specific way. Of course, it's easy to avoid obvious howlers, but much more difficult to avoid being tripped up by a shift in meaning.

    PS: I'm not saying that the Maybrick diary was artificially aged, by the way. It might have been, but right now we don't know that it was.
    Fair point Gareth,

    I was just giving it the 'how can anyone be that dumb!' thinking. It reminds of something that you may have heard of. There was a guy in the process of a bank robbery standing at the back pretending to fill a form in while he waited for the queue to die down. He committed the robbery and scarpered. When the police checked where he was standing they found that he'd actually filled the form in with his name and address! Another 'Napoleon of Crime!'
    Regards

    Herlock






    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

    Comment


    • I am trying to figure out how to take a screenshot of the Greens and post it here as I like to provide evidence of my claims but I am working on an iPad for the first time in my life and a month in, I still can barely type on this stupid idiot device. I will figure it out and post it.

      Let all Oz be agreed;
      I'm Wicked through and through.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ally View Post
        I am trying to figure out how to take a screenshot of the Greens and post it here as I like to provide evidence of my claims but I am working on an iPad for the first time in my life and a month in, I still can barely type on this stupid idiot device. I will figure it out and post it.
        I have a IPad Pro and it's completely wasted on me! I recently tried to upload a photograph on Sherlock Holmes forum that I post on but it keeps saying file too large. I emailed the pic to a mate who 'reduced' it for me. Still too large to upload! Why can't things be simple?

        If you say that that's what is says in Green's that's good enough for me. I'm sure that you'll sort the posting issue out. I've given up. I think that I need to get some kind of editing app but I don't know which one for an IPad or whether it would be too complicated for a computer idiot like me? Plus I'm very mean
        Regards

        Herlock






        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Monty View Post
          Apologies Caz, as someone who has been interested in Ripperology since the age of 12, I naturally assumed an interest in all things connected.

          I didn't realise Keith offered them to Casebook. I assume, yet again, these were offered to Spry, yes?

          And I'm slightly surprised Ripperologist has not taken up this offer, what with them being a respected publication and free.

          Monty
          Look, Monty, you can stir the pot as much as you like, but when I asked Keith if he would take the wretched notes to the Liverpool Conference [in the event that David Orsam didn't want anything to do with them - or me - personally] and see if anyone attending would be willing or able to put them up here and at the jtrforums; and when Keith readily agreed; and when I posted a request to that effect on both; and when that resulted in Keith being told he could hand them over in advance of the Conference for that purpose, we were both delighted. Job done as far as we were concerned.

          Neither of us knew a sodding thing about what had been going on behind the scenes until Admin's post on the subject, 'reminding' people about something I had never known in the first place and found myself inadvertently stepping in. Ignorance was indeed bliss up until that point. We had no idea Keith would be allowing Vlad the Impaler to publish the notes when he should have been holding out for Mother Teresa. It's all a bit late to put the genie back in the bottle, isn't it?

          I doubt I'll be able to catch up with the last million posts here anytime soon, as I have nicer things to do.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
            No actual legit provenance, out-of-date phrases and pub's, entirely different writing-styles, specific wording that was evident in books published a century later, conflicting accounts and retractions, and you sincerely think that this adds up to evidence? Baffling, Caz.
            Don't misrepresent me, Mike. I was not talking about the internal evidence for or against. You should know by now that I don't believe it to be Maybrick's work, any more than Mike's. I was talking only about the indications that it came from the house.

            The irony is that if there's any genuine rebuttal in that book to any of my issues, then you're all refraining from making them known. You all keep telling me how I haven't read the book, yet you all seem unwilling to challenge any of my points with some tangible evidence provided in said book. My guess is you do not do this because you cannot do it. Prove me wrong.
            This is just silly. I'm not trying to sway you from your 'issues'. I'm merely observing that if you read Robert's book you might find some answers, either confirming or challenging your opinions. I can't reproduce the whole thing here and why would anyone want to go through it with a fine-toothed comb to give you chapter and verse on everything you have a issue with?

            I shouldn't have to purchase a book to get some sort of rebuttal to my concerns on this forum, Caz, and shame on you for promoting such a thing.
            Charming. Why are you expecting me to provide a rebuttal to your concerns anyway? I didn't write the book. Robert did.

            No doubt you're getting a little somethin somethin from Keith, eh? Priceless, indeed
            Which just shows how little you know and how mean-spirited things can get. It was Robert's book, not mine or Keith's. I'm not getting a little anything from either of them and that has never been what it's about for me.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Graham View Post
              Some time later Feldman said that he no longer believed that the Diary had been abstracted from Battlecrease; rather what the electricians found, or claimed to have found, were some old documents. I find it difficult to accept the story that they took whatever it was to Liverpool University - why there? If it was anything of any perceived value then I'm sure there would have been a book or antique dealer in Liverpool who could have helped them. And as has been said, you don't just roll up at a large urban university and get to see someone straight away! Feldman discovered the true meaning of being 'on the make' if he hadn't done so already. As he said elsewhere in his book, in Liverpool money talks....!

              I actually enjoyed Feldman's book, even though I was fully aware after the first couple of chapters that it was largely bullshit! He was an entrepreneur and had Ripper-based hit movies in his sights! I think he jumped to far too many conclusions as a result of his 'interviews' with Billy Graham, and quite why he went after obscure descendants of James Maybrick in the Cambridgeshire Fens I never really understood. Hoping to find some proof of his theory concerning Billy Graham's descent, no doubt. But it was entertaining reading for all that, and he did I think add to our knowledge both of the Diary and the Maybrick Case. Worth a scan if you've never read it.

              Graham
              I, too, doubt the university story, and the fact that there's no details about where it was taken, or to whom, is odd. There is a bookshop I mentioned a few pages back, which was located on a different site than it is today pre-1998, and it deals in antique/rare books.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kaz View Post
                100% agreed. you can now pick up a copy on ebay for around £3 (you reading this, Mike?)

                Respect to the late Paul Feldman, he dug up some valuable info, aswell as concocting some... probably
                I'll be at the conference, Kaz, so if there's any new info, I'll get it there, and if I fancy buying his book, I'll get it there from one of his groupies, lol. How many of you are going?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  Look, Monty, you can stir the pot as much as you like, but when I asked Keith if he would take the wretched notes to the Liverpool Conference [in the event that David Orsam didn't want anything to do with them - or me - personally] and see if anyone attending would be willing or able to put them up here and at the jtrforums; and when Keith readily agreed; and when I posted a request to that effect on both; and when that resulted in Keith being told he could hand them over in advance of the Conference for that purpose, we were both delighted. Job done as far as we were concerned.

                  Neither of us knew a sodding thing about what had been going on behind the scenes until Admin's post on the subject, 'reminding' people about something I had never known in the first place and found myself inadvertently stepping in. Ignorance was indeed bliss up until that point. We had no idea Keith would be allowing Vlad the Impaler to publish the notes when he should have been holding out for Mother Teresa. It's all a bit late to put the genie back in the bottle, isn't it?

                  I doubt I'll be able to catch up with the last million posts here anytime soon, as I have nicer things to do.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  Hey Caz.

                  Your accusation of pot stirring amuses. I mean really? You are in no position to throw stones on that subject.

                  You stated, quite clearly that these notes would be available to the public, and that Casebook were offered them. This is an untruth isn't it? It's fine, just don't dress something up to be what it isn't.

                  Look. Your "Vlad the Impaler" comments would usually be treated with the good humour I'm sure you intended. However, the fact that Ally has been labelled a whore by the man and threatened with rape, the fact Beggy has also been threatened with a good beating and Adam Wood had to endure Cobbs goading days after his fathers passing after battling cancer, well forgive me if I don't find your words funny.

                  And ignorance is no defence. Just ask Gareth.


                  Monty




                  Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                  http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                  Comment


                  • Casebook has now been offered them, by Caz. I have accepted and once I work out an address to send them too (hurricane Irma has left me temporarily without an address) and receive them, I will be scanning them and posting them.

                    Let all Oz be agreed;
                    I'm Wicked through and through.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                      And ignorance is no defence. Just ask Gareth.
                      I'll happily help out where I can, and my fees are reasonable.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        Ok, I'll paint the target on my back and post again. I apologise in advance for the length of this post by the way. I'd like to start by, again, stating 4 points:
                        1. I am not pro-diary (although it shouldnt matter if I was.) I am simply someone who is not 100% convinced that it is a forgery at this point in time.
                        2. I am definately not an expert on the diary (or the whole ripper case for that matter.)
                        3. I'm also pretty certain that I'm not stupid or gullible and I certainly don't have any vested interest in the diary.
                        4. If an absolutely killer fact emerged that categorically disproved the diary my response would be 'oh, ok fair enough.' I wouldn't burst into tears or feel personally wounded.

                        And so, the 4 points:

                        'Poste House.' - I totally accept your points Mike. I suppose, from a personal viewpoint, part of my thinking is: would a forger who had taken the trouble to age documents and do the necessary research be so suicidally stupid as to invent an easily disprovable pub? I just think that it can't be impossible (improbable you may say) that the pub could have been known to a few as The Poste House especially as Post Office and Post House were apparently interchangeable terms. As Maybricks family lived near to it maybe it was what his dad called it and so in Maybrick's head that was what he called it. I've even heard it suggested that it didn't necessarily have to mean a Poste House in Liverpool? I'm not saying anything as a fact. I'm just saying that, to me, this could be a possible answer
                        For me, it's not a question of a would a forger be silly enough to make a mistake, because he/she made a few, and obviously never bothered to change up details or check whether certain information was correct.

                        This isn't uncommon in hoaxes throughout history. Hoaxes are never foolproof, mainly because humans are all subject to basic errors. I can name many hoaxes, and already have, in which silly mistakes were made.

                        My view is that the Poste House has always been known in this city for being historic, with many a famous name having drank there. Now, the key thing to look at is that the history of the pub is much older than its name, so if someone looking into a suitable old pub was to check, the Poste House would've had a date that preceeded it's current name, and that is where the mistake is made. When looking into the history of the pub, it gives you the rough date of its first appearance, but that's it, if you dig deeper, you learn about the previous title, but anyone checking for a date on the pub would simply see that it was a suitable age. This is what the writer must surely have done. They checked the date, saw it was old enough, but didn't question if it had been known by the same name, and why would they?

                        What're the chances that he was talking about another pub with the exact same spelling? Are there any? It's highly doubtful that that was the case, so again we're choosing to ignore probability and accept a one in a million chance.

                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        Tin matchbox empty - This one always bothered me the most. Smith's argument is that 2 lines down is the line 'decided Sir Jim to strike.' He believes that this type of inversion is because it's in the form of a poem and the writer used this method to help the 'flow' of the poem. I'll leave that for everyone else. Who knows? It's not impossible. Yes it's a 'coincidence' compared to the police list but it can't be impossible that 4 words could be employed in the same order. It should go without saying that I have no issue with anyone who doesn't buy the explaination.
                        The issue is that here again, we have another very very low probability of a coincidence being genuine, this is the second one in a million coincidence that we're being asked to believe. Normally, with dubious items, any kind of coincidence is questioned thoroughly, yet with the diary, we have many, yet we're being asked to ignore them and accept them. It's weird.


                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        Handwriting - This is a personal opinion but I've always felt a) has there ever been in the history of forgery an example of someone forging a document without even attempting to forge the handwriting of the alleged subject?
                        b) that it can't be impossible that Maybrick who saw himself one one hand as a 'gentleman born,' saw the ripper as his dark side (his Mr Hyde if you will.) Yes Mike, it's a pity that it's never been tested to see if there are any detectable traits of Maybrick's known hand (or even Mike Barrett's) but, as you will accept, there's nothing I can do about that.
                        Here's what Phillip Knight, involved with the Mussillini and Hitler diary investigations had to say:

                        Fortunately, there is at least one surviving example of Maybrick's handwriting, that of his will dated 25 April 1889. It is two pages long, both signed by Maybrick. The signature is the same as that on his marriage certificate dated 27 July 1881 and the handwriting in the will - witnessed by two men - is the same as that used in the signatures. This handwriting is strikingly different from the diary's handwriting.

                        - Phillip Knightly, 1993


                        So it's a third coincidence we're being asked to believe, and I have to wonder at this point how many coincidences are the cut-off point for anyone using critical thinking.


                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        'One-off instance - This phrase gives me nightmares! It was pointed out by David that 'one off' used as a metaphor for something that happened only once was not in use at the time as there was no written evidence. It was used in industry, evidenced in either1903 or 5, as a one off job or pattern. A part or job only done once. I expressed doubts that it wasn't impossible that it could have been used earlier although I accepted that David was overwhelmingly likely to be correct. Now, and I'm only repeating Robert Smith here, he says that he has found the phrase 'one-off duty' used in 19th century prisons (in Jonathon Green's Dictionary of Jargon.) And so, if this is correct (and I'm not saying it is) then one off appears to have been used as a metaphor for something that occurred once and so phrases like 'one-off event' 'one-off occasion' 'one of instance' could have been used. Yes, it will be said, why hadn't an example survived in writing? Who knows? Has every phrase that's ever been used survived in writing? We surely can't have written records of every single phrase ever employed in the English language?
                        So this is coincidence #4.

                        What we're being told is that Maybrick was coincidentally drinking at an establishment lost to time, which shared the exact same unique name as a pub that would come to be know by that name in James's city not long after.

                        Maybrick coincidentally managed to write an item down in the same wording as would appear a century later.

                        Maybrick coincidentally did what no other human's have been able to accomplish, in making his handwriting the complete opposite of his natural hand, detail and all.

                        And finally, Maybrick also coincidentally coined a phrase that wasn't known in that context at the time.

                        For me, with the already unlikeliness and inconsistent nature of it all, these coincidences are a huge red flag.

                        I can't help it if anyone chooses to overlook these things, but what I can do is assume that if a person is willing to ignore them, they're not using their logic or common sense, and are choosing to be blinded by a want for a good story.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by StevenOwl View Post
                          Correct - the Diarist says he "took refreshment at the Poste House" when deciding that the location of his killing spree was going to be in Whitechapel, London. They don't say the Poste House is in Liverpool. They don't actually say it's a pub either.
                          Well, it's funny that I can't find any mention of a Poste House pub in London at the time, nor in Liverpool, but we know with 100% certainty one did go by that name in Liverpool, home of Maybrick, not far from his offices, in the years after 1888 and still resides here today.

                          If you're willing to ignore this, it's your call, but I find it truly woeful that this is what passes for critical thinking around here.

                          People see an "FM" on a wall and it's suddenly totally Florence Maybrick, but they see "Poste House" and it's, erm, could be a totally different random pub that has since vanished into oblivion.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                            Doesn't this amount to an argument from incredulity? In other words, "I can't believe a hoaxer would make such a basic error, therefore it's not a hoax". It's specious logic, because if he hadn't made such an oversight, that would support the case for its authenticity.
                            It's not even a difficult error to make. If you look at the history of the pub, it would show you that it was indeed there in the year in question, but it doesn't inform you that it went by a different name, to find that out you have to dig deeper.

                            So, you have an historic pub, known to be old, forger checks the date, it's there in 1888, boom! An error is made without realizing it.

                            Either that, or it's just another happy coincidence like the rest of them, in this one in a million case

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              Not on my part it's not Harry because all I'm saying is, if I can just put it into one sentence: 'it's a little strange that a forger, who aged documents and did at least a decent amount of research, would make such an obvious howler!?) I'm not saying that he couldn't have or didn't have Harry. It could be just a huge ****-up which would leave our hoaxer deserving of being unceremoniously booted out of the 'Forgers Hall Of Fame.'

                              It proves nothing, as you say Harry. I just think it's a bit strange. That's all.

                              By the way admin, this is the second time I've had the censors in. I'd just like to stress that the word blanked out did not have the letter f in it. Male chicken, ok.
                              It's not a difficult error to make, Herlock, I've explained this in full.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                                HS wrote:



                                I stand to be corrected, but didn't handwriting expert Reed Hayes of the US investigation team compare the Diary with both the Will and Maybrick's signature on his wedding-certificate? And concluded that neither the Will nor the Diary were written by the same hand as the signature? Whether Hayes had an opportunity to examine the SS Baltic letter I don't know. I know sweet f.a. about handwriting analysis, but do wonder if it's possible to establish a person's handwriting style and traits from his signature.

                                Graham
                                Even Phillip Knight covered this in '93, and stated that it was very very unlikely that Maybrick wrote the diary, seeing neither of May's signatures matched the writing displayed in the diary. This is a man who was involved in the Mussilini and Hitler diary investigations.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X