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

[Mike J. G.]

And the scientific tests all appear to favour an older date for the diary.

Do they, though? I'm not sure if they actually do. The Mussilini diary was also found to be suitably aged, and we know that it was done so by sticking it in the oven. Nothing about the Maybrick diary is even remotely proven with regards to its age, and people constantly forget that, or just choose to ignore it.

[Scott Nelson]

What I'd like to ask supporters of an older hoax is this, who do you suppose wrote the diary?

It could have been George Grossmith.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do they, though? I'm not sure if they actually do. The Mussilini diary was also found to be suitably aged, and we know that it was done so by sticking it in the oven. Nothing about the Maybrick diary is even remotely proven with regards to its age, and people constantly forget that, or just choose to ignore it.

I'm in a hotel at the moment Mike so I have no books with me. I'm unsure how they could be scientifically 'proven' then. If every test that's been done to show the age can all be fooled by trickery what's left? Melvyn Harris for eg was keen to use science to disprove the diary. He failed (and it appears not very honestly either.) If science had disproved the diary I wonder if people on the anti side would have said 'this could be the result of trickery?' Or would hey have accepted it? Surely people can't ave it both ways?
To my mind it's bit like - Barrett announces the diary (liar.) - Barrett admits forging it (honest.) - Barrettt retracts forgery announcement (liar again.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Since Dodd has claimed that the diary wasn't seen there during earlier work, coupled with the fact that the electrician wasn't certain if the diary was found in 1989 or 1992, I'm not sure if the Battlecrease provenance is anything to hang our hats on, Herlock.

I'm not saying that the diary coming out of the house and ending up in Barrett's hands on the same day is impossible, but it's certainly not very probable, for reasons I've explained, and I'm asking those who support that version of events to explain how it was done.

It's silly for anyone to just say, well Rigby's mate took it at lunchtime into town, then they contacted Barrett at a pub, because we're getting back into the territory of making up random facts to account for odd inconsistencies.

You can have the book come out of the house and into the hands of Mr. T, if you wish to do so, but you'd have to show some logical reasoning to explain it away, and the same applies for this scenario being put forth regarding Rigby passing it to a mate, and that mate organizing a random meeting at a random building with a random bloke, and then randomly deciding to pass it over to Barrett, a man whom nobody seems to want to give any credence to most of the time, but in this scenario, he's obviously an important chap indeed!

I know that if I found a potentially important document that I felt had enough value to warrant a trip to the local random university, I'd follow that up by seeking out the local eccentric at the pub, he'd know what to do with it!

Not.

They find the diary-get it checked at uni-someone takes it to Barrett because he's done a bit of writing and they think he might know who to approach to sell it-Barrett makes the phone call. I can't see anything impossible Or even improbable in that Mike. I'm not saying for a fact that it's true but it could be. Surely we can't discount something because we can't give a detailed itinerary of events?

[Mike J. G.]

I'm in a hotel at the moment Mike so I have no books with me. I'm unsure how they could be scientifically 'proven' then. If every test that's been done to show the age can all be fooled by trickery what's left? Melvyn Harris for eg was keen to use science to disprove the diary. He failed (and it appears not very honestly either.) If science had disproved the diary I wonder if people on the anti side would have said 'this could be the result of trickery?' Or would hey have accepted it? Surely people can't ave it both ways?
To my mind it's bit like - Barrett announces the diary (liar.) - Barrett admits forging it (honest.) - Barrettt retracts forgery announcement (liar again.)

It's a tricky one, which is the intent of a hoax in the first place, to deceive.

There would obviously be ways to prove that it was the real deal, but the simple fact is that nobody has yet done that to any great satisfaction.

There are conflicting views on the ink analysis for a reason.

Hoaxes are literally constructed to fool people, and this is what the diary has done, plain and simple. When you have a situation where no two people can agree on the age, then you look at the rest of it.

Here's my take: there are enough reasons to suggest hoax. There are enough reasons to suggest a more modern hoax.

Are there any reasons to suggest either a genuine article or an old hoax? People seem apprehensive about offering those reasons, if there are any.

[Mike J. G.]

They find the diary-get it checked at uni-someone takes it to Barrett because he's done a bit of writing and they think he might know who to approach to sell it-Barrett makes the phone call. I can't see anything impossible Or even improbable in that Mike. I'm not saying for a fact that it's true but it could be. Surely we can't discount something because we can't give a detailed itinerary of events?

Hang on, I thought Barrett's foray into writing was being laughed at by most on here? Now we're to assume he was known at the Saddle as the resident writer who'd know what to do with a potentially important document?

So, on one hand, Barrett is a nitwit who couldn't construct a sentence or have anything to do with a diary, but on the other hand, he's regarded enough in literature by his mates to be deemed the go-to-guy when you find an interesting bit of literature?

I never said it was impossible, I said it was improbable. I gave some valid reasons for finding it improbable, and I'm yet to see anyone explain those with a reasonable answer that doesn't consist of imaginative explanations such as "Rigby finds diary, Rigby gives diary to mate, mate contacts random university, then decides to contact the local booze-hound who would know what to do with a book such as that".

That's like me saying it's not impossible that Barrett wrote it, constructed a plan with his electrician mate who worked for a company that had previously worked at the house and then went at it.

In fact, considering we're now having Barrett be associated with an electrician, and seeing as the company had worked at the house in '89, then why is it impossible for the diary to have been concocted as far back as then, and set aside for a perfect time to launch it into the public eye?

This is the difference between probable and improbable.

[Sam Flynn]

Do they, though? I'm not sure if they actually do. The Mussilini diary was also found to be suitably aged, and we know that it was done so by sticking it in the oven. Nothing about the Maybrick diary is even remotely proven with regards to its age, and people constantly forget that, or just choose to ignore it.

Quite.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm yet to see anyone explain those with a reasonable answer that doesn't consist of imaginative explanations such as "Rigby finds diary, Rigby gives diary to mate, mate contacts random university, then decides to contact the local booze-hound who would know what to do with a book such as that".

Not forgetting, "Rigby finds potentially important document and decides to get shot of it right away".

[Sam Flynn]

They find the diary-get it checked at uni-someone takes it to Barrett because he's done a bit of writing and they think he might know who to approach to sell it-Barrett makes the phone call. I can't see anything impossible Or even improbable in that Mike.

It's the time-scale, Herlock. Laughably improbable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's a tricky one, which is the intent of a hoax in the first place, to deceive.

There would obviously be ways to prove that it was the real deal, but the simple fact is that nobody has yet done that to any great satisfaction.

There are conflicting views on the ink analysis for a reason.

Hoaxes are literally constructed to fool people, and this is what the diary has done, plain and simple. When you have a situation where no two people can agree on the age, then you look at the rest of it.

Here's my take: there are enough reasons to suggest hoax. There are enough reasons to suggest a more modern hoax.

Are there any reasons to suggest either a genuine article or an old hoax? People seem apprehensive about offering those reasons, if there are any.

I'm only going on fallible memory here Mike but I can't recall any contradicting scientific evidence. I've read the overview in Smiths book and it seems pretty plain, obviously unless he's lying, that the evidence says 'old.' The scientific evidence for the watch says 'old.' I find it hard to just dismiss it.

Because people have lied about its provenance that's not proof that it's a forgery. It's proof that people have lied about its providence. 'Why the need to lie?' you'd probably ask. Possibly to cover up a forgery but there are other reasons to. Reasons related to marital problems as Smith talks about. Reasons of not wanting to be involved in something where hey might get accused of stealing. There's probably a few more but we surely can't just assume that it's to cover up a forgery. None of us can be that certain....can we?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's the time-scale, Herlock. Laughably improbable.

Why?

And again Sam, 'improbable' in the opinion of some but not impossible.

[Mike J. G.]

I'm only going on fallible memory here Mike but I can't recall any contradicting scientific evidence. I've read the overview in Smiths book and it seems pretty plain, obviously unless he's lying, that the evidence says 'old.' The scientific evidence for the watch says 'old.' I find it hard to just dismiss it.

Because people have lied about its provenance that's not proof that it's a forgery. It's proof that people have lied about its providence. 'Why the need to lie?' you'd probably ask. Possibly to cover up a forgery but there are other reasons to. Reasons related to marital problems as Smith talks about. Reasons of not wanting to be involved in something where hey might get accused of stealing. There's probably a few more but we surely can't just assume that it's to cover up a forgery. None of us can be that certain....can we?

You're also aware that scientific analysis of the Mussilini diary gave the impression of an old document, too, right?

No, because people have lied about the provenance doesn't mean it's a forgery, but what you should be wondering is why a supposedly real document, genuinely found, would cause everyone around it to lie so utterly hopelessly and repeatedly. Think of all of the genuine finds out there, and ask yourself if they, too, were surrounded by dodgy stories...

The scientific evidence for the watch says old, because it's an old watch. The funny thing being dismissed is that the people set with the task of cleaning said watch saw no initials on it at all when it was in their shop...

People find it easy to dismiss the fact that the writer mentions a non-existent pub with a distinct and giveaway spelling, yet they can't dismiss other things as easily.

If you steal something, why take it to a university who would undoubtedly ask you were you got it from? Does that make sense?

If you steal something, why offer it to a publisher in London?

We really must use our common sense on this one.

[Sam Flynn]

Are there any reasons to suggest either a genuine article or an old hoax? People seem apprehensive about offering those reasons, if there are any.

The only real reason, as I see it, seems to be the McNeil ion-migration test, whose sensitivity was demonstrated to be significantly compromised when the test was applied to the Mormon "Salamander" letters. The test was developed against a small sample of documents spanning several centuries, but as yet I have not seen any evidence of how accurate it might be when confronted by papers of different composition produced in the same century.

[Mike J. G.]

Why?

And again Sam, 'improbable' in the opinion of some but not impossible.

I've explained the dodgy timescale so many times, Herlock.

When was the diary found? When did Rigby pass it to his mate? Who contacted the university? When did they take it in? When did they then take it to the Saddle? When did Barrett contact the publisher?

[Sam Flynn]

Why?

And again Sam, 'improbable' in the opinion of some but not impossible.

Indisputably improbable, Herlock - nothing to do with opinion but, as you say, not "impossible". Equally, if not more, improbable is the idea that anyone finding such an important document would want to get rid of it within the space of a few hours. More improbable again is that they'd want to get rid of it to a comparative stranger down the pub. Add to this the fact that said comparative stranger claimed that he'd got it from his mate, Tony Devereux, and not the electricians, and it casts an even darker shadow of improbability onto the Battlecrease Provenance story.