One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Yes, I have.

The Times was quoting Smith Gryphon, British publishers of the Diary fiasco.

I'm amazed they managed to scrape up 25 experts. Maybe coin of the realm was involved.

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

In short don't judge a book by it's colour

[Observer]

Ehhh. Only one line of my post appeared there.

[Observer]

If the diary is a forgery, and it might well be, I just don't personally prescribe to the view that it would have been an easy task. I didn't know him Observer as you probably guessed. I've seen film footage of him and read about him. Everything seemed to show an unstable kind of guy and not particularly bright. It's just the impression that I've gotten of him over the years.

Just an opinion.

Regards
Herlock

Hi HS

The "old hoax" theorists are only too pleased when Mike Barret is painted in a light like the one you use above. Did any of them know Mike Barret before he brought the journal into the public domain? Mike Barret apparently submitted articles too a children's music publication, and had them accepted. I believe the picture you paint of Barret were brought on as a result of the machinations surrounding the journal, in the early days. In short don't judge a book by it's cover. A word on Anne Barret. Mark Feldman remarked that Anne Barret took to the research he set her like a duck to water, hinting that she was no stranger to the methods of research. Also, let's face it we're not talking about a piece of classical litrature here, more Mills and Boon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS

The "old hoax" theorists are only too pleased when Mike Barret is painted in a light like the one you use above. Did any of them know Mike Barret before he brought the journal into the public domain? Mike Barret apparently submitted articles too a children's music publication, and had them accepted. I believe the picture you paint of Barret were brought on as a result of the machinations surrounding the journal, in the early days. In short don't judge a book by it's cover. A word on Anne Barret. Mark Feldman remarked that Anne Barret took to the research he set her like a duck to water, hinting that she was no stranger to the methods of research. Also, let's face it we're not talking about a piece of classical litrature here, more Mills and Boon.

Hi Observer

Fair point.

I'm definately not a pro-diarist but I'd categorise myself as someone who is, shall we say, less certain that it's a forgery. The overwhelming likelihood is that it is a forgery. My own thinking, for what it's worth, is that none of the individual doubts raised, on their own, convince me as being conclusive. I could be wrong though. I also can't agree when the term 'amateurish fake' is used. The existence of the watch also creates a little doubt for me too.
I suspect that the one issue that I've raised in the past that tends to astound or even annoy people is about the handwriting. I, personally, don't see it as too much of a problem. One point is that, who would possibly believe that they could get away with forging a diary without even attempting to copy the handwriting?
And if (yes, I realise it's a massive if) Maybrick was the Ripper and wrote the diary surely it's not impossible that he saw his 'ripper' side as his alter-ego; his Mr Hyde if you like, and used a different hand from his usual one?
These are just 'worms of doubt' as I call them, wriggling around in my brain. It's not something that I think about much though. Too busy arguing about Cross/Lechmere to be honest.

Regards
Herlock

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

I have read many of your posts here but I still am uncertain of your position regarding the diary. Real or faked?

c.d.

[Harry D]

Hello Caz,

I have read many of your posts here but I still am uncertain of your position regarding the diary. Real or faked?

c.d.

Caz can answer for herself but I get the sense from her posts she's in the "old hoax" camp.

[c.d.]

Even if it can be proven that Maybrick did write the diary, is it therefore an absolute certainty that he was in fact the Ripper? This point seems to get overlooked as far as I can tell. You have Patricia Cornwell going to great lengths to prove that Sickert wrote the Ripper letters but again that only proves that he wrote certain letters. It does not prove that he was the Ripper.

The diary thread seems to have been a dead horse for years. God forgive me but why not start a new thread based on the assumption that it is in fact real? Now offer evidence that it proves Maybrick was the Ripper.

c.d.

[Henry Flower]

Even if it can be proven that Maybrick did write the diary, is it therefore an absolute certainty that he was in fact the Ripper? This point seems to get overlooked as far as I can tell. You have Patricia Cornwell going to great lengths to prove that Sickert wrote the Ripper letters but again that only proves that he wrote certain letters. It does not prove that he was the Ripper.

The diary thread seems to have been a dead horse for years. God forgive me but why not start a new thread based on the assumption that it is in fact real? Now offer evidence that it proves Maybrick was the Ripper.

c.d.

I think the diary might be fake. James Maybrick faked it. It was part of a story he told his wife, to scare her. Kind of backfired.

He got lucky when it turned out it was possible for people to interpret some marks on a wall in a photo as 'FM'. Lucky Jim.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi all

I've often wondered if the diary was in fact written by Maybrick but he wasn't the Ripper. Some kind of morbid revenge fantasy maybe. Maybe he hoped that it would be discovered just after his death and that the unfaithful Florence would have to live with the stigma of being Jack's wife with people thinking 'she must have known.'

Regards
Herlock

[Iconoclast]

Hi all

I've often wondered if the diary was in fact written by Maybrick but he wasn't the Ripper. Some kind of morbid revenge fantasy maybe. Maybe he hoped that it would be discovered just after his death and that the unfaithful Florence would have to live with the stigma of being Jack's wife with people thinking 'she must have known.'

Regards
Herlock

Herlock,

How would Maybrick have known to cite only five canonical victims when the prevailing assumption until about the 1950s was that there were seven?

Catherine Eddowe's possessions were not published until 1987 so from where did Maybrick copy the line 'tin match box empty'?

Was his reference to Kelly's missing heart ('No heart, no heart') just an utter coincidence? This information also wasn't published until 1987.

That's just three examples that I can think of off the top of my head as to why if Maybrick wrote the journal then Maybrick was Jack the Spratt McVitie.

If the handwriting doesn't bother you, what specifically (for you) makes the journal a hoax rather than an authentic document of the crimes by the murderer himself? (It would be great if your answer wasn't simply an iteration of old lines such as 'It's so melodramatic, it's obviously not real', as if slaughtering at least five sex workers was not a reasonably melodramatic act.) What specific things about the journal are (for you) the reason why you don't accept it as authentic?

Cheers,

Ike

[Harry D]

It wasn't until 1987 that the police documents confirmed the true placement of Mary Kelly's torn breasts. Until then, the enduring myth was that they had been left on the bedside table. Therefore, either it was hoaxed before 1987, or Maybrick simply couldn't remember what he'd done with them (which seems unlikely given their almost ritualistic positioning) and aped off the newspapers.

[Observer]

Caz can answer for herself but I get the sense from her posts she's in the "old hoax" camp.

I believe the "old hoax" camp are conveniently staying well clear of the work done by David Orsam regarding the use of the phrase "one off" as written in the journal.

[Simon Wood]

I believe the "old hoax" camp are actually in the "stay out of jail" camp.

[Observer]

Hi Observer

Fair point.

I'm definately not a pro-diarist but I'd categorise myself as someone who is, shall we say, less certain that it's a forgery. The overwhelming likelihood is that it is a forgery. My own thinking, for what it's worth, is that none of the individual doubts raised, on their own, convince me as being conclusive. I could be wrong though. I also can't agree when the term 'amateurish fake' is used. The existence of the watch also creates a little doubt for me too.
I suspect that the one issue that I've raised in the past that tends to astound or even annoy people is about the handwriting. I, personally, don't see it as too much of a problem. One point is that, who would possibly believe that they could get away with forging a diary without even attempting to copy the handwriting?
And if (yes, I realise it's a massive if) Maybrick was the Ripper and wrote the diary surely it's not impossible that he saw his 'ripper' side as his alter-ego; his Mr Hyde if you like, and used a different hand from his usual one?
These are just 'worms of doubt' as I call them, wriggling around in my brain. It's not something that I think about much though. Too busy arguing about Cross/Lechmere to be honest.

Regards
Herlock

Hi HS

The top and bottom of it is the fact that Mike, and Anne Barret were the ones holding the smoking gun. Remember Anne Barret, changed her story as to the journal's discovery several times. Apparently, neither of their handwriting seems to be evident in the journal. I believe they knew who the culprit was though.