One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Graham]

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.

But 'authentic' in what respect? That it really was written by Jack The Ripper?

I've already said that I don't believe that it was, which I think implies that I don't believe that its contents are significant. What taxes my brain, such as it is, is WHY it was written, for WHAT purpose, and by WHOM?

Graham

[Bridewell]

But 'authentic' in what respect? That it really was written by Jack The Ripper?

For me, authenticity would involve its having been written by Maybrick and Maybrick having been who he claimed to be. If it was written by Maybrick and he wasn't the killer, it would be an irrelevance, albeit an interesting one.

[Graham]

For me, authenticity would involve its having been written by Maybrick and Maybrick having been who he claimed to be. If it was written by Maybrick and he wasn't the killer, it would be an irrelevance, albeit an interesting one.

Hang on a bit - when you say 'Maybrick having been who he claimed to be', do you imply that James Maybrick, he who was supposedly bumped off by his unfaithful missus, actually claimed to be Jack The Ripper? In real life, he never did. As far as the 'Diary' goes, if you believe that it was written by James Maybrick, as it purports to be even though the name James Maybrick is never mentioned, then yes - James Maybrick was the Ripper.

All the 'Diary' says is a reference, possibly two, to Battlecrease House. And of course references to 'Jim', 'Jimmy' and 'Sir Jim'. The name 'Maybrick' is never mentioned.

Graham

[Gladiator]

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.

The significance of the content would no longer need to be debated if the diary ever passes your first hurdle. If it is ever shown to be authentic (that is, the work of James Maybrick who was indeed Jack the Ripper) then by definition it is what it says it is. The significance of the content is the most relevant issue currently precisely because we do not have the means (at present) to demonstrate authenticity. Indeed, it is hard to imagine what authenticity would look like to those whose minds genuinely appear closed to any other possibility than that the diary was not written by James Maybrick.

I think it would be difficult to make the argument that this artefact is one of the common hoaxing stock. It has survived far too much scrutiny to be the cobbled-together farce many claim it to be. These are people who almost certainly haven't read a word of any of the diary works, and that is a huge disappointment as that level of indolence quickly infects the minds of those who should be more cautious.

The one thing that we can definitely say about the diary is that it has neither been shown to be authentic nor shown to be fraudulent. After twenty years of analysis, that tells me that this is no ordinary document, and certainly no shoddy fake.

The Sunday Times should permanently hang its metaphorical head in shame as it was undoubtedly its 1993 article ('Fake') which ignited the fire upon which Michael Barrett subsequently threw a few fireworks, burning the diary figuratively after Anne attempted to burn it literally.

And, Graham, the diary cannot be a hoax and have been written in or around the time of the crimes unless it was written by someone with an astonishing knowledge of the Maybrick household and the crimes themselves, as the diary references details which have only gone on the record in modern times.

The diary is either authentic or a 'modern' hoax - though not so modern, as the date the ink went down on the paper has been stated to be no later than 1970, and this claim (despite your own claim) has not (to my knowledge) been contradicted by any other analysis, which is a serious problem for the modern hoax theorists given the reference to Mary Kelly's missing heart.

I suspect that authenticity is beyond us now - too many years have passed. All we have left is a diary which refuses to yield its secrets, and the right to an opinion. Mine favours the diary as authentic (on the simple balance of probability) until categorically shown otherwise.

Gladiator

[Phil H]

If it is ever shown to be authentic (that is, the work of James Maybrick who was indeed Jack the Ripper) then by definition it is what it says it is.

Not so. It could be that Maybrick was a delusional fantasist who sought to put himself in Jack's place in imagination. Like a schoolgirl keeping a diary fantasising about an affair with a teacher. What was written might never have happened.

I don't believe that to be the case, of course. However achieved, I am firmly of the view that the forgery was done after the MJK phorograph became public. Internal evidence strongly suggests that was the case.

Phil

[Gladiator]

If it is ever shown to be authentic (that is, the work of James Maybrick who was indeed Jack the Ripper) then by definition it is what it says it is.

Not so. It could be that Maybrick was a delusional fantasist who sought to put himself in Jack's place in imagination. Like a schoolgirl keeping a diary fantasising about an affair with a teacher. What was written might never have happened.

I don't believe that to be the case, of course. However achieved, I am firmly of the view that the forgery was done after the MJK phorograph became public. Internal evidence strongly suggests that was the case.

Phil

Actually, very yes so. Note my post - it was a reply to Bridewell who had defined for us what authentic would mean: For me, authenticity would involve its having been written by Maybrick and Maybrick having been who he claimed to be.

Cheers,

Gladiator

[Phil H]

But Gladiator - note the phrase in the middle of the bolded quote I referred to:

James Maybrick who was indeed Jack the Ripper

The so-called "diary", even if proved be be authored by Maybrick, would not prove him to be "Jack".

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

As there was no such person as Jack the Ripper, he couldn't very well have written a diary.

But just as a point of interest, James Maybrick did once meet Vincent Van Gogh.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

As there was no such person as Jack the Ripper

A point yet to be universally accepted I think.

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil H,

How right you are.

However, Jack's days are decidedly numbered.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

conspiracy

Hello Simon. Maybrick and Van Gogh? Case closed!

Cheers.
LC

[Gladiator]

But Gladiator - note the phrase in the middle of the bolded quote I referred to:

James Maybrick who was indeed Jack the Ripper

The so-called "diary", even if proved be be authored by Maybrick, would not prove him to be "Jack".

Phil

But Phil - note Bridewell's post, my reply to Bridewell's post, and then my reply to your post. Each was in relation to Bridewell's definition of 'authentic' in this case.

In this context, it doesn't matter whether Maybrick was JtR or not - I was seeking to clarify the logical consequences of Bridewel's definition of 'authentic' in the event that the diary were ever proved to be so.

[Phil H]

I responded to what I read, my friend.

Case closed.

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gladiator,

"I was seeking to clarify the logical consequences of Bridewell's definition of 'authentic' in the event that the diary were ever proved to be so."

Don't hold your breath.

Regards,

Simon

[Gladiator]

Hi Gladiator,

"I was seeking to clarify the logical consequences of Bridewell's definition of 'authentic' in the event that the diary were ever proved to be so."

Don't hold your breath.

Regards,

Simon

I can't say I'm optimistic, but hope springs eternal and all that ...