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

[caz]

The problem in the writing is that we see "e" added to "post haste," IIRC, which strikes me as something a person of that era would not do...

Even with 'Poste Restante' signs being a familiar sight in that era?

As you know, I think the diary author was probably dumbing down to portray "Sir Jim" as a poorly educated brute with ideas above his station, including the notion that a post house and post haste - with their shared postal origins - should have the same 'e' as in Poste Restante.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

You'd have to ask Robert, Abby, and if you hadn't noticed he doesn't post on here and, even if he did, why would he just come on here and repeat word for word what's in his book? I don't know any more than you do about this 'diary team', although it presumably consists of people who do believe the diary is a genuine Victorian document and possibly even the 'real deal'. Is anyone fitting that description posting here currently? I have yet to catch up, but I don't personally know how old the diary is and I haven't 'defended' it here as genuinely Victorian, let alone the 'real deal' - despite what others may have tried to imply.

I just don't personally think it's modern enough to be a Barrett production, but everyone is free to have an opinion, including myself, and it's not as if I haven't tried to defend my own opinion over the years, is it?

Love,

Caz
X

well that's whats so frustrating-wheres the beef?

I'm serious. someone anyone please offer up something. The only thing ive seen from the defenders-whether its those who think its authentic or an old hoax- is just nebulous stuff defending or explaining all the peripheral craziness. Or its in the book-which apparently I cant even buy if I wanted. Or saying its answered in the blurb in the OP.

Where the heck is this mythical "diary team"? why aren't they on here?

theres another thread on here titled-One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

well, whats one fact, and forget all the adjectives, that supports the diary?

and Ill take just one! ONE! please anybody-just one!?!

[Mike J. G.]

Even with 'Poste Restante' signs being a familiar sight in that era?

As you know, I think the diary author was probably dumbing down to portray "Sir Jim" as a poorly educated brute with ideas above his station, including the notion that a post house and post haste - with their shared postal origins - should have the same 'e' as in Poste Restante.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, the pub was never known by the name of "Poste", and you seem unwilling to take in that basic fact.

It doesn't go by the name "Poste" today, and no other pub in the area does, save for that one called the "Poste House" which anyone looking into the history of would find out was there in 1888, and would be under the impression that it was known as the Poste house back then, when it wasn't, which is why it's an easy mistake to make to think it was around in 1888.

I think "poste haste" was written as a subconscious error, after having to put an "e" on the name of the pub.

I don't see why anyone would feel the need to dumb Maybrick down intentionally, when by all accounts, he wasn't a dumb man. "Rendezvous" is also spelled incorrectly.

[Mike J. G.]

Another inconsistency and an unlikely detail is that the writer claims that they are worried about whether the diary will be found during its completion.

"Maybrick" supposedly claims that if he "downs a whore", then nothing will lead it back to him, yet here he is, writing it all down in full detail in true story-form...

He claims that nobody would suspect him, as he's not ever been known for hurting even a fly, and yet here he is penning all of this down for someone to obviously read...

[Mike J. G.]

Another totally nonsensical detail is that "Maybrick" claims to not want to get any blood on him during his deeds, as it would be "too hard to explain", he goes to great length to fret over this, and yet he then goes digging around inside his victims' bodies looking for organs.

Seems legit.

[Graham]

My life, I've only been out the house for an hour and a half and war's brokken out...again. Calm down, people, calm down.

The first 'Diary' book I read was Feldman's. Why? Because I was familiar with his name. Problem was, as I read more and more of what, in fairness, was an entertaining read, it became fairly plain that he was barking up the wrong tree. Well, plain to me, at any rate. Even so, for a man to chuck the amount of lolly as he did at his pet theory took some balls, though it's obvious he was hoping that there'd be a crock of gold marked 'Feldman' at the end of the rainbow. It was a good read, though.

The problem I had - and have - is that I never did buy any of the 'celebrity' Ripper theories. Sickert, Lewis Carroll, Prince Eddy, William Gull, Maybrick, van Gogh for Christ's sake - nah. I looked at it like this: if any of these guys had been caught out, what they stood to lose doesn't bear thinking about. But some poor, half-starved, probably semi-homeless bloke scratching a poor living in the East End - far more likely.

Plus 'toffs' have staff - Maybrick had several servants, including a Keyhole Kate who had her nose in everyone's business in that doubtless sad household; he had successful brothers, including one who was internationally famous; he had a wife who liked illicit nookie, as indeed he did. IF Maybrick had been the Ripper and IF he had been caught, then the furore which would have ensued would be almost unimaginable. Why on earth would a man like Maybrick take such a risk? And with a large domestic staff, a number of brothers popping in and out, many business associates, if he was indeed the Ripper then surely at least ONE of them would have voiced a suspicion?

I read ages ago a theory that Michael Maybrick, having discovered or strongly suspected that James was Jack, bumped him off to save his, Michael's, reputation and fortune, and pinned it on Florrie - who as far as I'm aware never voiced a single suspicion of her husband. Nope, don't buy.

I'm not 100% certain that terms like 'one off instance', 'I'll give you a call', etc., etc., in themselves can prove the Diary is a modern hoax, but what made me sit up when I first read a transcript was "Tin Matchbox, Empty". I immediately thought that either Maybrick had access to police reports, or possessed a time-machine. There is also, as I've mentioned before, a problem (to me, at least) with the 'flow' of the Diary, how it's worded, all the crossings-out, the syntax and construction, and how it strikes me as a much more modern writer trying to 'write Victorian' and not quite succeeding.

But what the hell....sorry if I banged on a bit.

Graham

[Mike J. G.]

There are valid reasons to believe this is a more modern hoax, but as yet, I'm scratching my head looking for a similar number of valid reasons to either suggest an older hoax or the real deal.

There's that tumbleweed again!

[John G]

1) Who is supposed to have told X that a book had been found?

2) How does X know where to find Y?

Can you use names, rather than X and Y?

You're basically saying that Rigby called someone, that someone called Barrett and told him about the diary?

Rigby certainly didn't go to any pub at lunchtime in Anfield, Caz, not from Aigburth.

And when did they go to the University with the book?

It does stretch credulity when you have to make this account up just to fit, when so far as we know, this isn't how the account was described.

And why on earth would Barrett head off to a library, to obtain a telephone number of a random London publisher, on the flimsy pretext that he's been informed through a third party that Jack the Ripper's diary has been found? And this is a document that he's had no opportunity to examine himself, let alone authenticate. And anyway, why on earth was Barrett getting involved if the diary was in someone else's possession? Why did he subsequently accuse the electrician of being a liar in respect of the diary being found at Battlecrease? Why would Rigby give the diary to Barrett if he believed it to be valuable, I.e Jack the Ripper's diary?

[Mike J. G.]

Maybrick is said to have stated, while discussing the murder of Nichols with his friend George (Davidson?) that "excellent Liverpool police" would not have allowed such a thing to happen there, which is an odd thing for a Liverpool man to say, when there are recorded murders here for the year 1888, including several tragic child murders.

For instance, the murder of Maurice George Boadle, and the relatively less-distant-than-London murder of 7 year-old John Gill, whose tragic murder ironically and coincidentally echoed the mutilations seen in both the Whitechapel series, and the Thames Torso series.

Is this ignorance on the part of an apparently news-reading Maybrick? Or is it an error on the part of an assuming forger?

Considering the fact that a murder was invented for May's first kill in Manchester, I'd say that this is yet more yarn-spinning.

[John G]

Nope, you said you couldn't recall one bloke, and offered me the surname of one man, or some initials.

What's amazing, is that these two vague people for whom you claim to have no contact with, are the only two people in this city who can lay claim to knowing possibly the most obscure nickname for a pub ever.

The Post Office Tavern, apparently known by two random blokes as the "Poste House."

It's a hardly scientific approach is it? I'm afraid this is what gets the subject of Ripperology a bad name, I.e. I know the pub was called the Poste House because some random bloke in a pub told me so!

[Mike J. G.]

And why on earth would Barrett head off to a library, to obtain a telephone number of a random London publisher, on the flimsy pretext that he's been informed through a third party that Jack the Ripper's diary has been found? And this is a document that he's had no opportunity to examine himself, let alone authrnticate. And anyway, why on earth was Barrett getting involved if the diary was in someone else's possession? Why did he subsequently accuse the electrician of being a liar in respect of the diary being found at Battlecrease? Why would Rigby give the diary to Barrett if he believed it to be valuable, I.e Jack the Ripper's diary?

There seems to be no fitting answer, even from the people who're claiming this provenance to be the likely one.

What I want to know, is if we go with Caz's questionable version, why did Rigby(?), or the vague and mysterious Mr. X, decide to tell Barrett about it?

Why is Barrett suddenly a man whom you'd think of when finding a supposedly interesting old diary?

We're being told Barrett was a simple man, partial to the ale, who couldn't possibly have anything to do with a hoax, and yet here we are being told that when you find a potentially important document from the past, he's the likeliest bloke to get in touch with.

So, Rigby finds diary, informs Mr. X, Mr. X seeks out Barrett, due to Barrett being an apparently distinguished resource on old documents, and Barrett contacts London, apparently making good on his presumed "connections."

Very odd.

[Mike J. G.]

It's a hardly scientific approach is it? I'm afraid this is what gets the subject of Ripperology a bad name, I.e. I know the pub was called the Poste House because some random bloke in a pub told me so!

Pretty much, this is what passes for evidence, John.

This is my entire point regarding people just making things up to explain away errors and problems. In reality, you can only go with what you actually have evidence for, otherwise, we could simply reason away lots of things to accommodate such problems, which ultimately leads us nowhere except down the rabbit hole.

[Mike J. G.]

In 1891, we have more mutilation-style murders in Liverpool and in the North, the likes of which match the murder of John Gill, which in turn matches the Whitechapel and Thames murders.

Yet, Jim was dead. Odd that we have such similar murders from before and after Jim's dubious reign of terror.

Is this suggestive of a different killer? More than one killer per murder? Copycat murders? Or evidence that such murders were not as rare as is commonly thought?

[John G]

There seems to be no fitting answer, even from the people who're claiming this provenance to be the likely one.

What I want to know, is if we go with Caz's questionable version, why did Rigby(?), or the vague and mysterious Mr. X, decide to tell Barrett about it?

Why is Barrett suddenly a man whom you'd think of when finding a supposedly interesting old diary?

We're being told Barrett was a simple man, partial to the ale, who couldn't possibly have anything to do with a hoax, and yet here we are being told that when you find a potentially important document from the past, he's the likeliest bloke to get in touch with.

So, Rigby finds diary, informs Mr. X, Mr. X seeks out Barrett, due to Barrett being an apparently distinguished resource on old documents, and Barrett contacts London, apparently making good on his presumed "connections."

Very odd.

I think some people are starting to enter the realms of fantasy. So, Rigby finds the diary and, after what could only have been a cursory look, goes off in search of Mr X, during a period when he's supposed to be working, and asks him to locate Barrett, the local drunk, urgently.

Mr X carries out an exhaustive search eventually finding Barrett where he informs him that Rigby -a man he subsequently denied knowing, and Rigby's never claimed to know Barrett either-has just made the find of the century.

Now, does he do what any sane person would do at this stage, i.e. by asking Mr X if he's drunk or whether he's been smoking something he shouldn't? No, Barrett immediately bombs off to the library in order to obtain the telephone number of a random London literary agent in order to triumphantly inform them that Jack the Ripper's diary has been found, a document he's not seen, let alone authenticated.

And how did the diary subsequently get into Barrett's possession? If Rigby gave it to Mr X to give to Barrett, why would he trust someone who he has no proven connection to with what he regards as a valuable find? Why did Barrett phone the publisher before he's made even the most rudimentary attempts to authenticate the document?

Why did Barrett subsequently accuse the electrician of lying about finding the diary at Battlecrease? Why didn't Rigby beat the hell out of Barrett at this point for "stealing" the diary from him? How did the electricians subsequently get the diary back into their possession in order to take it to Liverpool University? Why did they give it back to Barrett?

[John G]

Pretty much, this is what passes for evidence, John.

This is my entire point regarding people just making things up to explain away errors and problems. In reality, you can only go with what you actually have evidence for, otherwise, we could simply reason away lots of things to accommodate such problems, which ultimately leads us nowhere except down the rabbit hole.

If someone was to refer to this in a book, how would they go about referencing it, Mike? "The pub was definitely known locally as the Poste House" (reference). You then look up the reference at the back of the book and it states, "Some random bloke I met in a pub." Oh dear!