One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Soothsayer]

... and lives on only in the specious and circular arguments on Internet sites. [Long post]

Hi Stewart,

Wow - didn't mean to offend!

Tom

[Soothsayer]

... and Keith believes it to be an old forgery thus worthy of further research.

Interesting.

Presumably Keith Skinner believes that someone very close to the case wrote the diary. They would obviously have to have access to the official list of Eddowes' possessions and plagiarised from this long before it was officially published and referenced in Fido (1987). They would also need to know about MJK's heart being missing from the pericardium at the autopsy.

They would also have to have a fairly intimate knowledge of the Maybrick family movements, pet names, etc..

But the couldn't write it until the Poste House acquired that name, so whenever that was - late 19th century, I vaguely recall.

Obviously, they realised their luck was in with Maybrick (the 'JA+CK' in his name, the 'James' looking rather like 'Juwes', those pesky initials of his wife on MJK's wall, the possible psychopathology of his established addiction to arsenic, et cetera, et cetera).

And yet they still chose not to copy any one existing version of Maybrick's handwriting!

Baffling.

[Salome]

Hi Stewart,
I read your post with interest, can you expand on the 'nonsense and inventions' that you mention please? I have read all the evidence for the diary which is in the public domain but I obviously respect your opinion against, as one who was actually on the spot when it surfaced.
Many thanks,
Salome

[Omlor]

Well said, Stewart.

And of course, no one has ever found a single piece of real and verifiable evidence that links the diary to the real James Maybrick in any way. Nor have they ever found a logical explanation for why its pages are not in anything remotely like his real handwriting despite the writer making it perfectly clear who he is supposed to be and despite our now having all sorts of samples of James's real hand, or why it cites three times from a document he could not have seen or why the text makes simple historical errors about the murders or why it mentions the precise and uniquely spelled proper name, appropriately capitalized, of a pub that is right there where the diary first appeared but was not there when Maybrick was alive or why the book has no verifiable provenance and why there is no evidence of any sort that it actually existed in the appropriate century even, or why...

Well, everyone knows what all the evidence tells us.

"The remarkable thing" is that after all this time there are still suckers on the internet buying into this cheesy hoax.

But as I've mentioned before, this is the electronic land of flat-earthers and moon-walk conspiracy types, and "9/11 was a US plot" people, and the "dinosaurs hung with humans" crowd. So I guess nothing should surprise us.

Enjoy the day,

--John

[Stewart P Evans]

Divisive

Hi Stewart,
I read your post with interest, can you expand on the 'nonsense and inventions' that you mention please? I have read all the evidence for the diary which is in the public domain but I obviously respect your opinion against, as one who was actually on the spot when it surfaced.
Many thanks,
Salome

It is a well known fact that I do not like becoming involved in extended debates about the 'diary', apart from anything else it is a total waste of time. I have described, in the past, various examples of nonsense and invention by Paul Feldman and don't wish to do so all over again. Also the 'diary' has had its apologists over the years who are adept at squirming, wriggling and making all sorts of excuses and 'what ifs?' to sustain this tedious fake. It would be very easy for me to offend and, perhaps, draw accusations of personal attacks so for that reason alone I do not wish to name any others who have contributed to the so-called 'longevity' of this divisive subject. I have stated my opinion - anyone is entitled to agree or disagree, quite frankly I don't really care what they do - that's up to them. The 'diary' is an affront to serious Ripper studies.

[Salome]

Oh okay, sorry, I wasn't aware how upsetting a topic this is for you. I'll try and look up what you've said about it in the past if it wasn't lost with the old postings. My apologies, this is only my sixth post on the forums so I'm not very familiar with everyone yet.

[Soothsayer]

Oh okay, sorry, I wasn't aware how upsetting a topic this is for you. I'll try and look up what you've said about it in the past if it wasn't lost with the old postings. My apologies, this is only my sixth post on the forums so I'm not very familiar with everyone yet.

Welcome Salome.



This is a great site - I particularly like the Smilies!



Sadly, there's often a bit too much of this ...



... and not enough of this ...



As you're on this thread, what are your thoughts on the Maybrick diary?

[Salome]

Thanks for your welcome Soothsayer. I find it impossible to give a well-informed opinion about the 'diary' without having seen it and met the people concerned but based purely on Shirley Harrison's work, I don't believe that it is a contemporary account of the murders written by the perpetrator. However I am intrigued by its provenance and would love to know who wrote it. Shirley Harrison lost me straight away because she is one of those writers who love to emphasise every incredible turn of events with an exclamation mark! Even where they're not warranted! I'm very suspicious of these people!
Regards,
Salome

[Soothsayer]

Thanks for your welcome Soothsayer. I find it impossible to give a well-informed opinion about the 'diary' without having seen it and met the people concerned but based purely on Shirley Harrison's work, I don't believe that it is a contemporary account of the murders written by the perpetrator. However I am intrigued by its provenance and would love to know who wrote it. Shirley Harrison lost me straight away because she is one of those writers who love to emphasise every incredible turn of events with an exclamation mark! Even where they're not warranted! I'm very suspicious of these people!
Regards,
Salome

Yes, you're quite right, Salome - I found them irritating too. I think it's the implicit assumption that they necessarily mean we ought to be awed or impressed which leave me cold.

Stick with Smilies, I say - they're great! Maybe authors should use them in their great works of fiction. In 'War and Peace', you could have the occasional when someone dies. In Pride and Prejudice, the odd . The sky's the limit! ()

If you haven't already, take a look at Feldman. There are some intriguing moments in there (although most on this site would firmly disagree - I'll get that one in quickly).

For example, he illustrates Maybrick's Freedom of the City of Liverpool certificate which Maybrick signed with the same outlandish flourish that appears in the diary. Our forger did not appear to just stop at Fido and Ryan for his or her sources.

[Roy Corduroy]

Feldman

Hi Soothsayer and all,

My cousin Lorraine gave me the Diary of Jack the Ripper back in the 90's. Just me a Joe Public, didn't know much about JtR but I had read a great deal of true crime. Mrs. Harrison wrote a very interesting book which sold a great deal. So I read it and then paused and thought, no, he was not JtR. I haven't changed my mind.

Our public library has a good selection of JtR books, and of course they stock the celebrity suspect books. Yes they have Feldman, but I haven't read it. I suppose because I didn't buy into the first round. If I were to read that, would it convince me that Maybrick was the Ripper? Is it really that convincing?

Roy

[Omlor]

Roy,

No. If anything, when read critically, Feldman's book would only serve to convince you that your first take was the correct one. It's an awful mish-mash of unsupported claims, wild speculation, and sheer willful desire that goes to ridiculous extremes (at one point even suggesting without any real evidence whatsoever that James's well-known brother Mike was involved in all of this). It's a goofy book filled with unanswered rhetorical questions designed to take the place of actual evidence. And it's written in this sloppy, amateurish, gossipy prose style filled with phony melodramatic moments of revelation (the old "it was then that I knew one thing for sure..." nonsense). It has a bad habit of simply saying something, assuming that saying it makes it a fact, and then building further arguments on those made-up facts. In the end, it's a perfect example of what happens when one allows desire to trump thought and reason.

Save your money. If you must read it, borrow a copy or read it in the library. Even cheap and used, it's not worth the price.

--John

[Soothsayer]

Hi Soothsayer and all,

My cousin Lorraine gave me the Diary of Jack the Ripper back in the 90's. Just me a Joe Public, didn't know much about JtR but I had read a great deal of true crime. Mrs. Harrison wrote a very interesting book which sold a great deal. So I read it and then paused and thought, no, he was not JtR. I haven't changed my mind.

Our public library has a good selection of JtR books, and of course they stock the celebrity suspect books. Yes they have Feldman, but I haven't read it. I suppose because I didn't buy into the first round. If I were to read that, would it convince me that Maybrick was the Ripper? Is it really that convincing?

Roy

Hi Roy,

I doubt very much it would convince you, but it may well make you stop and pause again - perhaps with the same outcome as the last time.

Feldman unequivocally delved into the detail more than Harrison did. I suspect that he more or less bankrupted himself in the effort. What he produced was a book full of guesswork (the traditional stuff where suspects are concerned, it seems to me), and quite a few hmm-that's-worth-a-wee-thought moments.

I'm inclined to go back and read it again - it never ceases to entertain, even if it inevitably cannot wholly convince.

For the record, there'd be no harm in looking at Harrison's 'The American Connection' (though it's hardly about the American 'connection' at all). The only other diary-related book that I am aware of and have read is 'Ripper Diary: The Inside Story' by Seth Linder, Caroline Morris (disappointingly not yet to appear on this thread to date despite frequent appearances on other threads), and Keith Skinner, he of the old-forgery theory (apparently).

[Omlor]

Oh yeah, I forgot about the beautiful "American Connection" thing.

That's one of my favorites.

Turns out that James actually killed women right here in the US too!

Of course,there's absolutely no evidence for such an incredible claim, but surely that's beside the point. Right?

Keep the hoax alive. Sell a new edition. Milk that cow...

It makes me smile,

--John

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Stewart,

Wow - didn't mean to offend!

Tom

Why are you calling yourself Tom?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Salome]

It's actually quite irritating when you think about it, the whole Ripper industry. There's a huge raft of people out there churning out books based on very little factual evidence which we all rush out and spend our hard-earned cash on, filling their unworthy pockets. I vote we all boycott buying any new Ripper theory books and borrow them from the library instead.