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

[eddie1]

purchased

[Abby Normal]

Possibly not Paul but it has only been subjected to such "over-analysis" because you challenged my original analysis.

I think my original analysis was reasonable and the points I made were valid.

They are exactly the type of points I would have made to Adam had I been working for Mango books and he had shown me a draft of the blurb before publication. Then it would have been up to him if he cared about it.



So you think the book is going to reveal the diary to be a genuine forgery?

Extremely exciting, I agree.

It is rather confusing. now that ive read it a few times-theyre saying old hoax basically?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I assume that you've all seen this. I hadn't until I saw it posted on the JTR forum by Robert Linford

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/06/true-identity-jack-ripper-revealed-diary-confirmed-genuine/

Can't see where the 'real proof' comes in though?

[Abby Normal]

I assume that you've all seen this. I hadn't until I saw it posted on the JTR forum by Robert Linford

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/06/true-identity-jack-ripper-revealed-diary-confirmed-genuine/

Can't see where the 'real proof' comes in though?

well from that it looks like theyre saying not a hoax! really confused now. LOL!

[Henry Flower]

Throughout all this, Mr Smith has never wavered from his belief that the document is genuine.

He explained: "I have never been in any doubt that the diary is a genuine document written in 1888 and 1889.

"The new and indisputable evidence, that on 9th March 1992, the diary was removed from under the floorboards of the room that had been James Maybrick’s bedroom in 1889, and offered later on the very same day to a London literary agent, overrides any other considerations regarding its authenticity.

No indisputable proof is detailed in this article, which does mention that the three electrical workers have each denied playing any role in the discovery of the journal.

I guess we 'have to buy the book' if we want the proof. Still, good to know that Mr Smith is a true believer and always has been. True believers are rarely honest researchers, of course.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I assume that you've all seen this. I hadn't until I saw it posted on the JTR forum by Robert Linford

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/06/true-identity-jack-ripper-revealed-diary-confirmed-genuine/

Can't see where the 'real proof' comes in though?

Where is the "new" evidence?

Interesting that Bruce Robinson is mentioned in relation to the trail of the "diary" back to Battlecrease House, bearing in mind that his Ripper was Michael Maybrick, not James.

I think "Occam's Razor" should be used here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The most surprising thing for me is the involvement of Bruce Robinson. Has he 'jumped ship' from Michael to James now? Or is he saying that it was written by Michael to incriminate James?

Barnflatwyngarde (best name ever by the way) beat me to it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

True believers are rarely honest researchers, of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

"If it was a hoax, why hasn’t the proof of who forged it, and how and when, been forthcoming over the course of a quarter of a century?"

Hi David
I think the answer to your question is with the fact that there was a police fraud squad investigation into the diary and its authenticity shortly after it surfaced, when it was suggested that it was a hoax, and certain individuals had obtained a significant amount of money by deception. Now we do not know the extent of that investigation or its final outcome

A number of the main players at the time were interviewed, but it seems the police did not have enough evidence to charge anyone with any fraud offences connected to the diary. But the case remains on file and the papers cannot be released under the freedom of information act so that is why the truth has not yer been made public. But I am sure there are still persons out there who do know the truth.

I am certain that Barrett did not formulate the first affidavit. It could have been given to him to take to the solicitors for them to transcribe, but the question is who was that close to him at that time? Find the answer and it is a step nearer to find the missing link.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[barnflatwyngarde]

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?

[Simon Wood]

Hi barnflatwyngarde,

That is one of the best questions ever posted on Casebook.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

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?

It can not "nail Jack the Ripper".

The killer had no interest in writing books. He was not an author of books.

He was the author of murders.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

The killer had no interest in writing books. He was not an author of books.

He was the author of murders.

And the author of "texts" apparently.

"I have his name, the names of his relatives, his various addresses (sic) and texts he has written." ("Pierre", 25 September 2015, Casebook Forum)

[David Orsam]

Hi David
I think the answer to your question

That wasn't my question, Trevor.

That is a question asked in the blurb of the book which is the topic of discussion of this thread.

[Sam Flynn]

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

I'd imagine that producing a smartly-bound facsimile edition would push the production costs up considerably. Maybe a cheaper paperback edition will follow later? In any event, the book is mainly about the diary, not an exercise in identifying the killer; as the blurb says:

"Was the diary written by a serial killer? If it was, was he Jack the Ripper? These last two questions do not receive definitive answers in this book, but you will acquire plenty of information on them for you to form a sound opinion."