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

[Monty]

I'll happily help out where I can, and my fees are reasonable.

Who says the Welsh have no sense of humour.

Hairy Seagoon.

[Mike J. G.]

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.

It has been shown how truly easy it is to age text/paper, so it kind of puts the aged diary into a very awkward spot. We know that other hoaxed documents were aged, and it prevented any smoking guns in the analysis. The only reason the Mussilini diaries were found to be fraudulent is because the police found more than one in the home of the forger, lol.

[Mike J. G.]

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.

It's hard to tell, seeing as you spend so much time trying to swat away very valid arguments against it being genuine, which is frankly either a case of you stirring the pot and playing both sides, or you being on the fence. What other reason is there to actively seek to dismiss very valid arguments? I think the problem is that you don't represent yourself clearly, forcing others to misrepresent you.

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?

Surely the whole point in this conference is so that the information can be adequately explained, no? If I choose to purchase yet another book on the subject, I'll do it there, under my own volition.

Charming. Why are you expecting me to provide a rebuttal to your concerns anyway? I didn't write the book. Robert did.

Why are you expecting me to read the book? I didn't need it, being that I view it as an obvious hoax.

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

You may want to check some of your posts to me before talking about mean spirits, Caz, with your arrogant talk of me not understanding and needing to be forgiven for not having read the book, yet here you are again pretending like you never said it, lol.

[Mike J. G.]

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.

What? Who said all of this? What a waste of life.

[Mike J. G.]

Here's what gets me, people make the most awkward mental gymnastics possible to discount very apparent and odd coincidences and inconsistencies, yet they blather on about "FM" on a wall in Kelly's room as though it's Flo' Maybrick, when I can't even see a detailed FM at all, and some even find the names of family members in the GSG, which hasn't even been proven to have been written by the bloody killer, lol.

That is truly baffling for any down-to-earth person, tbh.

Out of this world.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And this is why I previously stated that I regretted joining a diary thread! I'm apperently incapable of logic or common sense or I'm wilfully ignoring facts. No matter how reasonable you try to be on here it's still I case of being an idiot for disagreeing!
'It's not difficult Herlock, I've already explained this in full.' That's called arrogance. 'I've explained it so why don't you just accept it because I can't possibly be wrong.' Your much vaunted 'critical thinking,' amounts to, a Victorian pub couldn't possibly have been known by some, or even one, by an alternate name. That it's not even mildly surprising that a forger would put a totally made-up pub into a diary (or even the ludicrous suggestion that he did it accidentally [that's some slip of the pen]) Being asked to accept coincidences is not 'weird.' Strangely enough i thought that it was only conspiracy theorists that didn't accept the existance of coincidences. You may be unaware Mike but coincidences are all around us. We are subject to them all the time. What would be weird would be if there were no coincidences. If something is a coincidence, so what? It's not proof of a lie, even if there are 10 of them.
You called I believe for response and debate. That's not what you are looking for. What you are looking for is to try and assert some kind of supreriority. The comfort of being in the 'group with the most votes.'
I'll lose no sleep about not returning to this post. I'll leave you to your certainty. To a place where no one will contradict you. Above all I'll allow you the time to check the dictionary for the differing definititions of the words 'improbable or implausible' and the word 'impossible!' as you clearly have difficulty distinguishing between the two.

[Mike J. G.]

And this is why I previously stated that I regretted joining a diary thread! I'm apperently incapable of logic or common sense or I'm wilfully ignoring facts. No matter how reasonable you try to be on here it's still I case of being an idiot for disagreeing!
'It's not difficult Herlock, I've already explained this in full.' That's called arrogance. 'I've explained it so why don't you just accept it because I can't possibly be wrong.' Your much vaunted 'critical thinking,' amounts to, a Victorian pub couldn't possibly have been known by some, or even one, by an alternate name. That it's not even mildly surprising that a forger would put a totally made-up pub into a diary (or even the ludicrous suggestion that he did it accidentally [that's some slip of the pen]) Being asked to accept coincidences is not 'weird.' Strangely enough i thought that it was only conspiracy theorists that didn't accept the existance of coincidences. You may be unaware Mike but coincidences are all around us. We are subject to them all the time. What would be weird would be if there were no coincidences. If something is a coincidence, so what? It's not proof of a lie, even if there are 10 of them.
You called I believe for response and debate. That's not what you are looking for. What you are looking for is to try and assert some kind of supreriority. The comfort of being in the 'group with the most votes.'
I'll lose no sleep about not returning to this post. I'll leave you to your certainty. To a place where no one will contradict you. Above all I'll allow you the time to check the dictionary for the differing definititions of the words 'improbable or implausible' and the word 'impossible!' as you clearly have difficulty distinguishing between the two.

Herlock, I'm not talking about you specifically, and I don't think you're at all illogical.

You're at least making a good attempt to explain those inconsistencies and coincidences, which others are doing everything to avoid. When I say "others" I'm talking about the supporters. I do not consider you as a supporter, and I've tried to make that clear as day, if I haven't, then I apologize.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind the attempts at explaining the coincidences, not because they aren't reasoned enough, but that they discount the obvious, which I've tried to explain.

[Sam Flynn]

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

Three or four such phrases, in fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I'm not talking about you specifically, and I don't think you're at all illogical.

You're at least making a good attempt to explain those inconsistencies and coincidences, which others are doing everything to avoid. When I say "others" I'm talking about the supporters. I do not consider you as a supporter, and I've tried to make that clear as day, if I haven't, then I apologize.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind the attempts at explaining the coincidences, not because they aren't reasoned enough, but that they discount the obvious, which I've tried to explain.

Ok Mike, perhaps when it comes to the diary I get a little more defensive than with other topics because when I try the old Devils Advocate bit I often get to feel like a Holocaust Denier. So.... no hard feelings

I just like looking at the other side and seeing if an arguement can be made. I genuinely dont think that some of the explainations aren't feasible. You disagree. No problems.

But as Holmes said in The Boscombe Valley Mystery.

"There's nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact."

[Mike J. G.]

Three or four such phrases, in fact.

Agreed, and this is the entire point regarding coincidence.

When you have one, it's permissible, when you have two, it's a bit odd, when there's three...well, red flags are waving, but to have four?

When you have a suspect item/document that is already doubtful, with an iffy story, dodgy provenance, examples of lying and inconsistencies in the sources, then to find a handful of striking coincidences contained within, it should make you instantly sceptical.

If people are continually making allowances for those issues, all the while giving credence to odd and doubtful details such as the FM on the wall, it shows you that they're not playing with a full deck of cards and are basically in love with the fiction.

[Mike J. G.]

[/B]


Ok Mike, perhaps when it comes to the diary I get a little more defensive than with other topics because when I try the old Devils Advocate bit I often get to feel like a Holocaust Denier. So.... no hard feelings

I just like looking at the other side and seeing if an arguement can be made. I genuinely dont think that some of the explainations aren't feasible. You disagree. No problems.

But as Holmes said in The Boscombe Valley Mystery.

"There's nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact."

Tbf, I genuinely see no issues with anyone playing devil's advocate, I think that's what we need to some degree, to get both sides and entertain possible and potentially conflicting theories. Somewhere in between lies the truth.

It's just that with this diary, there's a bit too much in the way of very odd problems that are not easily cast aside. I don't think anyone reasoning against those coincidences is illogical, they're in fact acting with logic, but it's just that the reasoning itself is short of the full mark.

For example, if anyone could show me that a pub known as the Poste House was in existence, I'd happily allow that to be a permissible coincidence. I can't just accept that some obscure pub may have been known by that name, there has to be evidence, because we already have evidence that there is a pub by that name, and it's not far from James's offices in town. This is why evidence and detail is important. Without it, we're guessing, and it's not the best way to go about solving anything.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The biggest problem as far as I can see Mike are the lies that have been told about its origins. If it had been stated from the start, for eg, that it came from Battlecrease then immediate investigations could have been done into the provenance. No we have to look back and assess timelines and who did what and when. Maybe more evidence will emerge? I have no problem with anyone being convinced it's a hoax.

[Mike J. G.]

The biggest problem as far as I can see Mike are the lies that have been told about its origins. If it had been stated from the start, for eg, that it came from Battlecrease then immediate investigations could have been done into the provenance. No we have to look back and assess timelines and who did what and when. Maybe more evidence will emerge? I have no problem with anyone being convinced it's a hoax.

That's another great point that goes in favour of the hoax claim. When you have something that is genuine, it normally isn't necessary to create more than one version of how it came to be in your possession. Now, if the diary had been outright stolen, and the person who previously owned it was aware it had been stolen, then you'd expect dodgy stories to arise, but in this case, the book wasn't stolen, because it didn't technically belong to anyone, other than maybe Paul Dodd, as he owned the house, but can it be guaranteed that the book genuinely did come from the house?

Time-sheets aren't enough, unless they state that the boards were lifted on that date, but even then that wouldn't prove the book had come from under those boards.

AFAIK, the former bedroom of Maybrick in 1992 was Dodd's sitting-room. So, there'd need to be actual evidence of the boards having been lifted in that room, but then there'd need to be some actual evidence that the book indeed came from there at all, of which there seems to be nothing except conflicting stories from the men involved.

There's just too many lies at this point to be certain, and when you have muddy water, it's not easy to clear it and see through.

The timeline, as I tried to explain to Caz, does not add up like she claims.

* There'd have to have been correspondence between the men and the university to arrange a meeting before setting off.

* Was this in the late afternoon after the shift had finished?

* It isn't possible to go from Aigburth into town at rush-hour in less than 30 minutes.

* They get to the university, meet said individual, talk, leave.

* Do they go back to the office to clock-off/return gear?

* Do they then go home or straight to the Saddle? How far is the office from the Saddle? The Saddle is in Anfield, about 10-15 minutes beyond town.

* Do they instantly meet Mike there and pass him the book?

* What time is left for Mike to have contacted a publisher during office-hours?

It is very very problematic, and that's just the timeline of the account, lol.

[John G]

I've just been reading the press reports again. Now I might have misunderstood, but my understanding is that the new, and exciting evidence amounts to this: Bruce Robinson checked the historic timesheets of Portus and Rhodes Ltd and discovered that three electricians- Arthur Rigby, James Coufopoulos and Eddie Lyons, one of whom told Paul Feldman that they would publicly admit to removing the diary in return for cash-where carrying out renovations at Battlecrease House on the same day that Mike Barrett contacted a literary agent to reveal he had in his possession "Jack The Ripper's Diary."

Now, the obvious inference is that this creates a connection between the discovery of the diary-allegedly by the electricians-and Mike Barrett. This connection is reinforced by the fact that Lyons was supposedly a regular at The Saddle Inn, Mike Barrett's local, although he initially denied this when spoken to by Paul Feldman a number of years ago.

Now unless I'm missing something how on earth does the scenario which is being hinted at make any sense? Thus, presumably what's being suggested is that one of the electricians met Barrett in The Saddle and offered him the diary., and he encouraged contacted the literary agent. However, considering how they subsequently became fixated on a financial reward, why would they just hand it over for free?

And there's a bigger problem. When exactly did the pub meeting take place? If it was in the evening, then presumably Barrett wouldn't have had sufficient time to contact the agent-and where did he get the telephone number from anyway?

If the electrician was having a liquid pub lunch at The Saddle- during which he met Barrett, who may, presumably, have been inebriated at the time (it was a pub, after all)-then how is Barrett supposed to have responded?

Okay, he takes a quick look at the document, whilst possibly drunk, thinks to himself, "Wow, this is obviously the diary of Jack the Ripper, I'd better contact a literary agent without delay?" Now quite apart from the obvious question-where did he get the literary agent's number from-what sane person thinks like that? It's completely absurd.

Moreover, this scenario doesn't even gel with what the electrician contact, who claimed to have been there when the diary was discovered, told Feldman. According to him he drove to Liverpool University with his two colleagues in an effort to get the document authenticated. However, if that was the case how did it end up with Barrett on the same day it was discovered? If the journey to Liverpool took place at a later date, then why did they subsequently give Barrett the diary? Particularly as they considered it to be of such importance that they travelled to Liverpool University to get it authenticated, and the electrician who drank at The Saddle expected to be remunerated in return for his "confession."

[Mike J. G.]

Now, the obvious inference is that this creates a connection between the discovery of the diary-allegedly by the electricians-and Mike Barrett. This connection is reinforced by the fact that Lyons was supposedly a regular at The Saddle Inn, Mike Barrett's local, although he initially denied this when spoken to by Paul Feldman a number of years ago.

Now unless I'm missing something how on earth does the scenario which is being hinted at make any sense? Thus, presumably what's being suggested is that one of the electricians met Barrett in The Saddle and offered him the diary., and he encouraged contacted the literary agent. However, considering how they subsequently became fixated on a financial reward, why would they just hand it over for free?

And there's a bigger problem. When exactly did the pub meeting take place? If it was in the evening, then presumably Barrett wouldn't have had sufficient time to contact the agent-and where did he get the telephone number from anyway?

If the electrician was having a liquid pub lunch at The Saddle- during which he met Barrett, who may, presumably, have been inebriated at the time (it was a pub, after all)-then how is Barrett supposed to have responded?

Okay, he takes a quick look at the document, whilst possibly drunk, thinks to himself, "Wow, this is obviously the diary of Jack the Ripper, I'd better contact a literary agent without delay?" Now quite apart from the obvious question-where did he get the literary agent's number from-what sane person thinks like that? It's completely absurd.

Moreover, this scenario doesn't even gel with what the electrician contact, who claimed to have been there when the diary was discovered, told Feldman. According to him he drove to Liverpool University with his two colleagues in an effort to get the document authenticated. However, if that was the case how did it end up with Barrett on the same day it was discovered? If the journey to Liverpool took place at a later date, then why did they subsequently give Barrett the diary? Particularly as they considered it to be of such importance that they travelled to Liverpool University to get it authenticated, and the electrician who drank at The Saddle expected to be remunerated in return for his "confession."

It is very very doubtful that any of the electricians would've met Mike at lunch, because Aigburth is nowhere near to Anfield, where the Saddle is. It's a good drive into town, then towards Anfield, which is about 10+ minutes outside of the city-center. If they were to have a drink during the shift, it'd have to have been at the Kingsman, over the road from the cricket club.

Surely the electricians would've finished the job and gone back to the company office, to return gear and time-sheets and clock-off, that's if they didn't have another job to go to after that one.

I don't see how they randomly ring the university, arrange a meeting, finish work, travel from Aigburth to town, meet with the university, then go where? Work again? Home? The Saddle? Do they meet Mike right away?

There's simply not enough time for all of this and for Mike to contact a publisher in London all during working business hours.