Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

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

    2017 marks a quarter of a century since the document known as the diary of Jack the Ripper first came to the attention of the Ripper world.

    This new book, by the diary's custodian and owner Robert Smith, has two main objectives: for the very first time to provide a same-size colour facsimile of the document, and to offer a record and an assessment of what has been discovered about the physical artefact and its contents since it emerged 25 years ago on 9th March 1992.

    What do we know now that we didnít when Robert's company, Smith Gryphon Ltd, published "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" by Shirley Harrison on 4th October 1993?

    If it was a hoax, why hasnít the proof of who forged it, and how and when, been forthcoming over the course of a quarter of a century?

    It is time to make public why the diary team is confident it is a genuine Victorian document.

    We can finally answer the following questions: When was it written? Where was it found? Why did it come to light on 9th March 1992? Where has it been for over 125 years? And we must ask one further and crucially linked question. Is Albert Johnsonís watch a genuine artefact from 1888?

    Lurking behind all of these questions are two more: 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.

    The diary is either a genuine document written circa 1888/89 or it is a modern fake. There is no other feasible option. If you want to make an objective assessment, you have to read every word in the diary with your full attention.

    With the new full-size facsimile in colour to hand, you can observe in detail the words, the handwriting, the variation of ink flows and pressures, the blots and blemishes, and the shade of the ink, about which much misinformation has been disseminated.

    Featuring chapters on the diary's provenence, the physical and scientific evidence, how the complex relationship between Michael and Anne Barrett impacted on and nearly wrecked the search for the diary's true provenance, and controversial topics such as "tin match box empty", 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER also includes a new annotated transcript, with extensive notes.

    * Limited edition A4 hardback
    * Full colour facsimile of the diary's 64 pages
    * Annotated transcript
    * Individually numbered and signed by the author
    * Published on Monday 4th September 2017
    * £25.00 plus P&P

    Purchase your copy now at
    http://mangobooks.co.uk/book.php?b=25
    Attached Files

  • #2
    "True facts" are perhaps my favourite sort of facts.

    Comment


    • #3
      I just can't help but notice a flaw in the internal logic of that book summary.

      On the one hand we are told that the question "When was it written?" will be finally answered.

      We are also told that the diary team is "confident it is a genuine Victorian document".

      Well if they've answered the question "When was it written?" they must know if it was a genuine Victorian document or not. Why are they only "confident" and not "certain"?

      But if they HAVE answered the question and are confident that it is a genuine Victorian document then QED, unless they are holding paradoxical views, the diary must have been written before the death of Queen Victoria.

      Then we are told:

      "The diary is either a genuine document written circa 1888/89 or it is a modern fake. There is no other feasible option."

      As they have already established that the document is Victorian then the answer must be that it was written circa 1888/89.

      Given that they've established this, it must be regarded as a bit of a shame that the questions: "Was the diary written by a serial killer? If it was, was he Jack the Ripper?" don't receive definitive answers. So near yet so far, it seems.

      Comment


      • #4
        Wonderful news! Really looking forward to seeing, and owning, a reproduction of the diary, annotated, along with a summary of the research.

        Another must have book from Mango.

        Congratulations to the publisher and thanks for making this happen for us.

        JM

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          I just can't help but notice a flaw in the internal logic of that book summary.

          On the one hand we are told that the question "When was it written?" will be finally answered.

          We are also told that the diary team is "confident it is a genuine Victorian document".

          Well if they've answered the question "When was it written?" they must know if it was a genuine Victorian document or not. Why are they only "confident" and not "certain"?

          But if they HAVE answered the question and are confident that it is a genuine Victorian document then QED, unless they are holding paradoxical views, the diary must have been written before the death of Queen Victoria.

          Then we are told:

          "The diary is either a genuine document written circa 1888/89 or it is a modern fake. There is no other feasible option."

          As they have already established that the document is Victorian then the answer must be that it was written circa 1888/89.

          Given that they've established this, it must be regarded as a bit of a shame that the questions: "Was the diary written by a serial killer? If it was, was he Jack the Ripper?" don't receive definitive answers. So near yet so far, it seems.
          Quite so, David.

          Could the key be the definition of "document"? Few of us doubt that it's a Victorian item. But most of us feel it's been written in somewhat more recently.

          No, that would be cheeky; "document" would refer to the contents, not an emptied out scrapbook...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
            "True facts" are perhaps my favourite sort of facts.
            They're becoming a rarity, bearing in mind the prevalence of "fake nooz" these days
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, GŲtzendšmmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • #7
              "If it was a hoax, why hasnít the proof of who forged it, and how and when, been forthcoming over the course of a quarter of a century?"

              I don't find this question very helpful. The suggestion is that because no-one has been able to prove who forged the diary, and how and when they forged it, this is somehow a point in favour of the diary being genuine.

              But, I mean, it's like saying that Jill Dando wasn't shot dead in 1999 because in 18 years no-one has been able to prove who murdered her and why. One can't always answer every question.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                "If it was a hoax, why hasnít the proof of who forged it, and how and when, been forthcoming over the course of a quarter of a century?"

                I don't find this question very helpful. The suggestion is that because no-one has been able to prove who forged the diary, and how and when they forged it, this is somehow a point in favour of the diary being genuine.

                But, I mean, it's like saying that Jill Dando wasn't shot dead in 1999 because in 18 years no-one has been able to prove who murdered her and why. One can't always answer every question.
                I must say that I can't see that what you suggest is implied by that question. Isn't Adam simply saying (or perhaps implying) that the question is one among several that will receive a definitive answer in the book.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                  I must say that I can't see that what you suggest is implied by that question. Isn't Adam simply saying (or perhaps implying) that the question is one among several that will receive a definitive answer in the book.
                  I must say I didn't think it was Adam's words - I thought he was reproducing a summary of the book from the publishers.

                  I've seen the exact same question asked on these boards to suggest that because no-one has been able to prove who forged it (and when and how) that this strongly suggests the diary is genuine. I feel very confident that this is exactly what is being suggested here too. I'm fairly sure it's a rhetorical question.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Purchased
                    ---------------------------------------------------
                    JtR3D.com JtR 3D Blog
                    ---------------------------------------------------
                    HHAP

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                      I must say I didn't think it was Adam's words - I thought he was reproducing a summary of the book from the publishers.
                      Adam Wood is the founder of Mango Books.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jmenges View Post
                        Adam Wood is the founder of Mango Books.
                        Ah right, jolly good, then he can assist with why he asked that question.

                        And perhaps he can clarify whether the "diary team" are certain it was written in 1888/89 or just confident.

                        Personally, I'd also like to know if the book deals with how someone writing in the Victorian period could possibly have formulated a sentence which included the words "it was a one off instance".

                        Oh, and I'd also like to know why Mike Barrett attempted to acquire (and did acquire) a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992. Is that dealt with in the book?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Purchased. Happy days.
                          Iconoclast
                          Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy, Genius

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            Ah right, jolly good, then he can assist with why he asked that question.

                            And perhaps he can clarify whether the "diary team" are certain it was written in 1888/89 or just confident.

                            Personally, I'd also like to know if the book deals with how someone writing in the Victorian period could possibly have formulated a sentence which included the words "it was a one off instance".

                            Oh, and I'd also like to know why Mike Barrett attempted to acquire (and did acquire) a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992. Is that dealt with in the book?
                            Such a cynic! You find it easier to believe that the diary confession of the world's most infamous uncaught murderer, presented to the world by a man who had acquired a partially empty Victorian diary in 1992, is a fake, than to believe that it is genuine and written by a murderer who used phrases that weren't used by anyone else of that era, or indeed for decades to come?

                            Oh David, for shame....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                              Purchased. Happy days.
                              Enjoy, Ike. You sound a little too excited - I would recommend laminating yours so it can be wiped clean as often as required.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X