One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Futzbucket]

I found the diary, at least the program, compelling and entertaining. One thing that caught my attention, was one person's quote, "he met a man in a pub who gave him the book and said, 'you might find this interesting', it's not good enough."

Why? I think that's actually a rather realistic turn of events. What ripperologists find so difficult in understanding is how a man could discover such a document and sit on it in silence all that time, only then to hand it to another with little to no explanation.

Of course, anyone who had a previous passion for this case would have screamed from the rooftops upon it's discovery, but the man who discovered it had absolutely no want whatsoever to have anything to do with this.

And it's not like he simply handed it to some stranger in a pub, this was a man he shared drinks with almost every day. Why him? Well, maybe he was the only man he knew would "do something with it", which tells me the original owner appreciated that something needed to be done with this document, but he didn't want to be the one to do it. I don't think he really cared what was done with the document; publish it or burn it, all he knew was he didn't want anything to do with it, but something needed to be done.

I admit that, if the document is true, that it is a funny way to end the story, but it is fitting. I mean, almost all the victims stories began that day in a pub, so why not all this end in a pub?

[Hunter]

And it's not like he simply handed it to some stranger in a pub, this was a man he shared drinks with almost every day. Why him? Well, maybe he was the only man he knew would "do something with it", which tells me the original owner appreciated that something needed to be done with this document, but he didn't want to be the one to do it. I don't think he really cared what was done with the document; publish it or burn it, all he knew was he didn't want anything to do with it, but something needed to be done.

Well, considering what subsequently happened, he must have picked the wrong guy to "do something with it."

[Futzbucket]

He later admitted it was a hoax, and then recanted, and then admitted again, and then recanted. Did something else happen?

[Gladiator]

He later admitted it was a hoax, and then recanted, and then admitted again, and then recanted. Did something else happen?

Far too much to re-hash here, Fitzbucket!

For me, the diary doesn't slip sufficiently in any one specific way that consigns it to the dustbin of history, and that suggests to me that after twenty years and many opinions and tests later that on the balance of probability we should consider it the actual 'confession' of James Maybrick, aka Jack the Ripper. Personally, that's good enough for me.

I'll be happy to change my view if ever that one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary ever materialises ...

Gladiator

[Cogidubnus]

He later admitted it was a hoax, and then recanted, and then admitted again, and then recanted. Did something else happen?

Hi Futzbucket

If the Ripper Diary and it's alleged finding really interest you then the book reviewed on this site at:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media...aryinside.html

may interest you as a starting point...it's now available second-hand very cheaply on Amazon

All the best

Dave

[Futzbucket]

Would you agree that, even if the diary was proven to be 100% accurate, that there will always be a large number of people who will still deny it?

I find a strange phenomenon that occurs in long-time, high-profile, unsolved cases is it will generate a group of people that seem to not want it to ever be solved.

[Cogidubnus]

Well there will always be a few FB, but I like to think most of us try to weigh things up in a bit more of a considered fashion than you imply. If you read the book I suggested though you'll see all the very best and very worst of human characteristics coming out!

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

We'll if the "diary" were ever shown to be genuine beyond all reasonable doubt, we would all have to reconsider the case.

BUT - and I think this a big "but" - it would still not prove Maybrick to be the murderer. He could be a fantasist.

Apart though from the half-used album (an odd choice I think) which itself militates against genuineness (IMHO) the internal evidence is all against Maybrick (or any other period author) being "Jack".

I have yet to find, or hear about a single fact or issue which the "diary" illumines with the light of one who was there. I would anticipate in something genuine some descriptions or narratives which would have us saying - "so that's how X and Y relate!"; or "so that's why that happened!"; "that's how he got away!". But there is none of that.

I have seen nothing, and been told of no single fact, that ONLY the killer could have known. All the material appears to be available from published sources.

The issues of the initials at Millers Court has been discussed in detail elsewhere. I believe the entire fabrication (ide and text) to be so obviosuly based on the famous photograph as to be in itself a proof that the diary is a modern forgery.

Phil

[Futzbucket]

In the program, they later refer to a gold watch that has the names of the victims, plus two more from another area that they couldn't track.

Were these two also mentioned in the diary?

[Hunter]

He later admitted it was a hoax, and then recanted, and then admitted again, and then recanted. Did something else happen?

Yes, but what you mentioned is sufficient I would think.

It never ceases to amaze me just how gullible people can be.

[Phil H]

More than one recantation in the field of Ripperology it seems.

Joseph (Hobo) Sickert/Gorman gave his story to the BBC, then Stephen Knight. He recanted in the Sunday papers, then gave his story to Melvyn Fairclough.

You couldn't make it up.

As an aside - the initials on the watch. How come they are those by which the victims are known today?

Phil

[Graham]

The real kicker with the 'Diary' is that it has never been proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is a modern production. Even the 'experts' who tested various aspects of the physical 'Diary' could not agree on whether the ink went on the paper 5 years or 95 years prior to the time it was 'discovered'. Or whether the ink itself was genuine late-Victorian or a modern concoction.

I deliberately apostrophise some words in the above statement for the following reasons:

1] it is not a 'Diary' in the strict sense of the word. It is not a day-by-day abbreviated account of the life of a particular individual during a particular period. It seems to me to be the rather random jotting of various notes and memoranda and personal feelings regarding certain personal matters the writer has experienced, is experiencing and hopes to experience;

2] most of the analysis of the 'Diary' and the writing therein was laced with personal opinion and prejudice. I say most because some of the analytical work carried out on it was very precise;

3] I do not think that the 'Diary' was in any sense a chance 'discovery', no matter what the process was by which it reached the public domain. I think that it came to light when it did for one purpose and one purpose only: profit. This is not to say that it was manufactured shortly before it entered the public domain.

Having read virtually all of the published works concerning the Ripper 'Diary', I lean towards the possibility, indeed probability, that it was manufactured shortly after the death of James Maybrick; unfortunately I can't with my hand on my heart say for certain why it was manufactured, although I do have a theory regarding this. It should also be remembered that Paul Feldman discovered that, shortly after the death of James Maybrick, someone was pushing to prospective publishers what was claimed to be the private diary of Florence Maybrick, but which even at the time was considered to be a hoax.

Was it, in my opinion, written by James Maybrick? No.
Was James Maybrick, in my opinion, Jack The Ripper? No.
Who wrote the 'Diary' then? I don't know.
Did Michael Barrett tell the truth regarding how he came by the 'Diary', or is Anne Barrett's version to be believed? What do YOU think?

This whole 'Diary' thing still fascinates me now as much as it did 20 years ago.

Graham

[Stephen Thomas]

Was it, in my opinion, written by James Maybrick? No.
Was James Maybrick, in my opinion, Jack The Ripper? No.
Who wrote the 'Diary' then? I don't know.
Did Michael Barrett tell the truth regarding how he came by the 'Diary', or is Anne Barrett's version to be believed? What do YOU think?

The whole thing was cobbled together by a bunch of Scouse chancers in the 1980s as far as I'm concerned. And JTR genius writer Keith Skinner needs to put up or shut up about whether this thing came out of Maybrick's old house.

[Graham]

The whole thing was cobbled together by a bunch of Scouse chancers in the 1980s as far as I'm concerned. And JTR genius writer Keith Skinner needs to put up or shut up about whether this thing came out of Maybrick's old house.

Too facile, Stephen. If the whole thing really was cobbled up by a bunch of Scousers in the 1980's, then how come the 'best' scientific brains of the day couldn't agree as to when the ink went onto the paper and, in addition, just what the ink was concocted of? The Hitler Diaries were, if you recall, exposed because the paper was conclusively proved to be modern - so far, there has been no scientific proof ref: the Ripper 'Diary' that either the paper or the ink is modern. There has been a whole lot of pseudo-scientific waffle and vague guesswork, but no concrete proof.

This brings back memories of Melvin Harris and his famed 'Nest Of Forgers', who he never did actually identify.

Re: Keith Skinner, I tend to agree.

Graham

[Bridewell]

The First Hurdle

Where the 'Diary'is concerned the first hurdle is proof of its authenticity. All the speculation about the significance of the content has no relevance unless and until that first hurdle is crossed. That may happen one day - or it may not. It certainly hasn't happened yet.