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

[Sam Flynn]

For what it's worth my own penis is clearly a modern forgery.

How come?

[Henry Flower]

For what it's worth, in Liverpool, in private conversations, Mr. Robert Anderson said the exaggerated crossbar on the letter "t" was "penis-like."

I couldn't possibly comment.

A modern penis or a Victorian penis? For what it's worth my own penis is clearly a modern forgery.

[Scott Nelson]

Chris,

What was the consensus of the conference attendees? Old Hoax or modern? Or the real deal? What was Shirley Harrison like?

[Abby Normal]

No. The jury most certainly is NOT out. The Maybrick Diary is a fake, plain and simple -- even though it still needs a stake driven through its heart to finish it off. 25 years of fakeness -- what a bloody achievement!

The hoaxer who came up with it should be proud: it has lasted far longer than it deserves. This piece of trash should have been dismissed and shoved into the shadows long ago.

Yup!!

[ChrisGeorge]

There are some signs in the diary that the writer is deliberately affecting an artificial style, most noticeably in the exaggerated crossbars on the letters "t". This isn't anyone's natural handwriting, whether of their normal personality or of an altered state of mind. It's evidently "forced".

For what it's worth, in Liverpool, in private conversations, Mr. Robert Anderson said the exaggerated crossbar on the letter "t" was "penis-like."

I couldn't possibly comment.

[Sam Flynn]

There is precedent in modern criminology for hand writing to change depending on an individuals state of mind though.

There are some signs in the diary that the writer is deliberately affecting an artificial style, most noticeably in the exaggerated crossbars on the letters "t". This isn't anyone's natural handwriting, whether of their normal personality or of an altered state of mind. It's evidently "forced".

[ChrisGeorge]

Strange, the whole diary business.

If it’s a modern fake, everything makes sense.

Old Fake (1880 to 1920) Why????

Genuine, even whyer. Why write something that could hang you, why hide it in your bedroom, how get it under the floor, why not in his handwriting, why use terms that at best we’re extremely rare at the time?

I attended the session on the Diary on Friday night at the Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference in Liverpool. As you probably know, Keith Skinner stated at the 2007 Maybrick Trial at the Liverpool Cricket Club, that the Diary "came out of Battlecrease." This appears to be the electricians story that Robert Smith has picked up in his book -- although from what I have learned from Liverpool sources, it isn't quite as simple as that the electrical workers found the Diary "under the floorboards." In other words, the story that men working for Portus and Rhodes Electricians found the Diary is more muddled and not as straightforward as Smith wants us to believe.

I am though prepared to think that Keith Skinner might be right that the Diary "came out of Battlecrease." That is, James Maybrick, the purported writer of the Diary didn't write it, but someone else did after his demise, and that those people living in Battlecrease after the Maybricks fabricated the story. In any case, some person or persons had the brilliant idea of "marrying" in the Diary the on-its-own very famous Maybrick Case of 1889 with the Jack the Ripper Case of 1888 . All power to the unknown person or persons -- brilliantly done. But the Diary is still a piece of trash that has hoodwinked too many people for far too long.

Best regards

Chris

[GUT]

The Maybrick diary was written in emulation of the Ripper letters. How derivative is that?

Strange, the whole diary business.

If it’s a modern fake, everything makes sense.

Old Fake (1880 to 1920) Why????

Genuine, even whyer. Why write something that could hang you, why hide it in your bedroom, how get it under the floor, why not in his handwriting, why use terms that at best we’re extremely rare at the time?

[ChrisGeorge]

And as pretty much no one thinks Dear Boss or Saucy Jack was written by the killer that doesn’t help.

The Maybrick diary was written in emulation of the Ripper letters. How derivative is that?

[GUT]

None of the hand writing matches each other, Diary, will, Dear Boss or saucy jack postcard.

There isn't any satisfactory explanation, (as usual) for anything except Maybrick being in two minds. Or should that be 4 or more minds for each piece of correspondence.

There is precedent in modern criminology for hand writing to change depending on an individuals state of mind though.

Robert Smith seems happy to leave it as a mystery unlikely to be solved. Also, calling into question forensic document examination as an inexact activity. Ultimately it is suggested that the issue is not an important one. (Not the exact wording but the meaning is clear).

Jury is out.

And as pretty much no one thinks Dear Boss or Saucy Jack was written by the killer that doesn’t help.

[ChrisGeorge]

None of the hand writing matches each other, Diary, will, Dear Boss or saucy jack postcard.

There isn't any satisfactory explanation, (as usual) for anything except Maybrick being in two minds. Or should that be 4 or more minds for each piece of correspondence.

There is precedent in modern criminology for hand writing to change depending on an individuals state of mind though.

Robert Smith seems happy to leave it as a mystery unlikely to be solved. Also, calling into question forensic document examination as an inexact activity. Ultimately it is suggested that the issue is not an important one. (Not the exact wording but the meaning is clear).

Jury is out.

No. The jury most certainly is NOT out. The Maybrick Diary is a fake, plain and simple -- even though it still needs a stake driven through its heart to finish it off. 25 years of fakeness -- what a bloody achievement!

The hoaxer who came up with it should be proud: it has lasted far longer than it deserves. This piece of trash should have been dismissed and shoved into the shadows long ago.

[peg&pie]

None of the hand writing matches each other, Diary, will, Dear Boss or saucy jack postcard.

There isn't any satisfactory explanation, (as usual) for anything except Maybrick being in two minds. Or should that be 4 or more minds for each piece of correspondence.

There is precedent in modern criminology for hand writing to change depending on an individuals state of mind though.

Robert Smith seems happy to leave it as a mystery unlikely to be solved. Also, calling into question forensic document examination as an inexact activity. Ultimately it is suggested that the issue is not an important one. (Not the exact wording but the meaning is clear).

Jury is out.

[Henry Flower]

Can someone remind me again what excuse was given that we would gloss over the fact that the handwriting does not match the will?

I'm sure had the scripts looks remotely similar it would have been lauded as positive proof of the diary's authenticity...but because they don't it does not really matter anyway.

This whole fiasco is like a pyramid selling scheme where the ones at the bottom are still ploughing in their money in the hope of enrichment while those at the apex are sunning their arse on a beach somewhere in tropics.

Dir Dave, I think it was established that when Maybrick was writing something that wouldn't be read until the future, and which used phrases that wouldn't exist until the future, he used a handwriting that looked less Victorian. It's great how it all hangs together, that internal consistency is one of the reasons I believe it is definitely the confession of James Maybrick, Jack the Ripper, and had been kept by Anne Barrett or Tony D for decades until it was instead discovered beneath the floorboards of Battlecrease by an electrician, who recognised its value and stole it, before immediately giving it to a bloke down the pub, who thought so much of it he tried to buy a blank one just like it.

[David Orsam]

It looks like it was indeed "privalage" to begin with, and slightly amended subsequently.

Good to know you see this too.

[Sam Flynn]

To me, under a magnifying glass, it looks like "privilage".

In fact, it rather looks like the first attempt at the word was "privalage". Then the first "a" has been roughly converted to a sort of "i".

What does anyone else think about the spelling?

It looks like it was indeed "privalage" to begin with, and slightly amended subsequently.