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

[Abby Normal]

If your 'they' was Robert Smith, why did you not write 'he'?

Less confusing that way, surely?

Love,

Caz
X

sorry if you were confused by

whoever is responsible for pedaling this "clever" diary nonsense.

[Abby Normal]

Dear Diary

Another dreadful day. They've rejected 'Ophelia Does Denmark' and instead want me to put in a load of crap about Hamlet and his dead dad. These Philistines don't appreciate true literature. Well, I'm not doing it. I'll give it to Billy Kempe to knock up, like he did all the others. It's getting a bit hairy, though. He's started asking for royalties. He may have to meet with an accident. Pah! I'm off to do some frequenting at the Boar's Head.

now that's funny.
and a diary I would buy! LOL!

[caz]

sorry if you were confused by

whoever is responsible for pedaling this "clever" diary nonsense.

Not me, Abby. You said you were confused by the blurb and what 'they' were going to conclude in the book. This is really incredibly simple. Robert Smith's name is on the cover, so 'he' will be doing any concluding there is to be done. You don't have to buy into that conclusion, or buy any book you consider to be pedaling nonsense.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Dear Diary

Another dreadful day. They've rejected 'Ophelia Does Denmark' and instead want me to put in a load of crap about Hamlet and his dead dad. These Philistines don't appreciate true literature. Well, I'm not doing it. I'll give it to Billy Kempe to knock up, like he did all the others. It's getting a bit hairy, though. He's started asking for royalties. He may have to meet with an accident. Pah! I'm off to do some frequenting at the Boar's Head.

Thank goodness, Robert! Someone with a sense of humour.

Out damned Spot! Out I say! I thought you were a good dog, but you're not.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Not me, Abby. You said you were confused by the blurb and what 'they' were going to conclude in the book. This is really incredibly simple. Robert Smith's name is on the cover, so 'he' will be doing any concluding there is to be done. You don't have to buy into that conclusion, or buy any book you consider to be pedaling nonsense.

Love,

Caz
X

yes it is in incredibly simple- its all a bunch of nonsense. including the confusing blurb!

[Kaz]

Not me, Abby. You said you were confused by the blurb and what 'they' were going to conclude in the book. This is really incredibly simple. Robert Smith's name is on the cover, so 'he' will be doing any concluding there is to be done. You don't have to buy into that conclusion, or buy any book you consider to be pedaling nonsense.

Love,

Caz
X

What do these naysayers get out of spending so much time and energy belittling others belief and interest in a suspect?



I wish this book would hurry up and arrive!

[Abby Normal]

Thank goodness, Robert! Someone with a sense of humour.

Out damned Spot! Out I say! I thought you were a good dog, but you're not.

Love,

Caz
X

Hey! I have a sense of humor-you must have missed my earlier post:

A Timeline of "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" *

1888-The Jack the Ripper murders occur in London

1889-James Maybrick's wife convicted of his murder

1988-Centennial of the Jack the Ripper murders, causing much public interest

1988-1992-M. Barrett thinks of ways to also get in on the action

1992-M. Barrett forges James Maybrick's diary as Jack the Ripper

1992-Present-25 years of bullshit


*crackpots, bloated egos and conmen were probably harmed in the making of this timeline

plus I responded that Roberts post was very funny.

[Michael W Richards]

And another thing!

If this book does indeed nail Jack the Ripper at last, why the hell are they only publishing it as a limited edition?

Shouldn't they be considering a massive print run?

I think because BS is slightly more tolerable in small doses.

[Abby Normal]

What do these naysayers get out of spending so much time and energy belittling others belief and interest in a suspect?



I wish this book would hurry up and arrive!

Hi Kaz

What do these naysayers get out of spending so much time and energy belittling others belief and interest in a suspect?

I sincerely apologize if I have ruffled any (horse)feathers ; )

[Kaz]

Hi Kaz



I sincerely apologize if I have ruffled any (horse)feathers ; )

Hi Abnormal

nothing ruffled, just a query

[David Orsam]

It is time to make public why the diary team is confident it is a genuine Victorian document.

Now, why would anyone posting in this thread assume that there is a "diary team"? I just can't work it out.

[David Orsam]

I've seen the exact same question asked on these boards to suggest that because no-one has been able to prove who forged it (and when and how) that this strongly suggests the diary is genuine.

Just to clarify that I didn't have anyone in particular in mind when I wrote this but I could equally have written:"I've seen the exact same question asked on these boards to suggest that because no-one has been able to prove who forged it (and when and how) that this strongly suggests the diary was written much earlier than 25 years ago". Another dreadfully bad argument.

[David Orsam]

I think, following on from your earlier post, Henry, someone needs to write the book "Jack the Ripper Diary: The False Facts". Now that, I expect, would be a good read.

As I posted on another thread, one of the false facts that has been mentioned in connection with the diary is that a forger could not have known that Maybrick wrote lyrics. But this information was contained in Nigel Moreland's 1957 book (i.e. page 7 refers to "the strong religious and moral nature of his lyrics").

It's also been said that one of the false facts was that Barrett could not have dictated the diary to his wife in 11 days in front of his daughter but, when I asked in another thread how it is known this is a false fact (or fundamentally incorrect), no-one could tell me.

[David Orsam]

Oh, and I'd also like to know why Mike Barrett attempted to acquire (and did acquire) a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992. Is that dealt with in the book?

I suppose one could ask Anne Barrett to tell us why her husband did this. Oh, but hold on a minute, there's an interesting paradox here: If the Diary was dug out of the floorboards of Battlecrease in March 1992 then it probably wasn't sitting in a big walk-in cupboard in Billy Graham's house in 1960, when Anne claims to have seen it, and that would mean that her entire "confession", in which she says it was, is a work of such fiction that one could almost imagine she was creative enough to assist in the writing of a diary by Jack the Ripper.

Then again, to know why Mike Barrett attempted to acquire (and did acquire) a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 shortly before he presented Shirley Harrison with the Victorian Diary of Jack the Ripper, I don't think we need to trouble the living or the dead about it.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Phillip Sugden - The complete history of Jack The ripper - The Chapter A century of final solutions - The unacceptable provenance of the diary, the missing front pages, the factual inaccuracies and the implausibility of Maybrick as a Ripper suspect – even without forensic tests we have learned enough to set a whole belfry of warning bells ringing. A reading of the diary still leaves me baffled as to how any intelligent and reasonably informed student of the Ripper case could possibly have taken it seriously. There were those well versed in the subject, men like Nick Warren, Tom Cullen and Melvin Harris, who saw through the hoax from the beginning. Yet it is astonishing how many experts were fooled and allowed their names to be used in the promotional literature. They remain there, preserved like flies in amber, warnings to the complacent and the credulous.