One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Rule 1 Caz
Never judge a book by its cover.

Never have, never will. And your point is?

And I would give five pence for you to come out and disclose all you really know about the diary instead of continually playing the " I think" card.

I wouldn't take your money, Trev, but it's not my information to sell anyway.

Love,

Caz
X

[Stewart P Evans]

One Incontrovertible...

One Incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which supports [the genuineness of] the 'Diary' - None

And the onus of proof is upon those who promote this crass modern fake as a 'diary' of Jack the Ripper. In that they have failed miserably for the past twenty years.

[Gladiator]

One Incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which supports [the genuineness of] the 'Diary' - None

And the onus of proof is upon those who promote this crass modern fake as a 'diary' of Jack the Ripper. In that they have failed miserably for the past twenty years.

Goodness, Stewart, if Ripper authors applied this kind of rigour there would be a few less books on my shelf (and significantly fewer suspects for the crime)!

I don't recall you demonstrating so much moral conviction when naming Francis Tumblety as our man - his inconvenient days in gaol before and after Kelly's murder arguably suggestng there wasn't a shred of evidence against him?

There is a wonderful logic in the world of Ripperology - and only in the world of Ripperology - which states that we should be excited only by that which is pure supposition and groundless fancy, and that we should all abhor the mere possibility of anything as vulgar as evidence and substance.

The diary at lest exists. It may well be fraudulent, but we will simply never know whilst we have such dissent amongst the chattering Ripper classes.

Gladiator

[pinkmoon]

Again I think we are missing the point here this diary should never have been published untill it could be proved where it has come from Stewart Evans has produced a well researched book about a character who if I was a policeman in 1888 would certainly won't to speak to yes I will concede tumbelty might well have been locked up when mary Kelly was killed but was kelly a ripper victim?.Stewart Evans has written a book based on fact not on something that a man gave him in a Liverpool pub

[caz]

One Incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which supports [the genuineness of] the 'Diary' - None

And the onus of proof is upon those who promote this crass modern fake as a 'diary' of Jack the Ripper. In that they have failed miserably for the past twenty years.

Hi Stewart,

You are right, of course. It should not really need saying over and over again. And I bet you have said the same to our literary agent, Robert Smith's face, as the man who first published it.

But isn't there also an onus of proof on those who state as fact that this document is modern (ie late 80s/early 90s)?

They too have failed miserably to prove this for the past twenty years, or none of us would still be here.

Science has stubbornly refused to play ball with the modern conspiracy theorists, dating the writing to before 1970. Suspicions of a considerably later date are all very well, but they have not yet managed to knock down the wall of forensic evidence.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

This diary will never go away it can never be proved however it can never be disproved

[Graham]

With regard to dating the 'Diary', Rod McNeill's "Ion Migration" technique was, I believe, called upon to back up results and opinions (mostly the latter) from Rendell and friends. When McNeill stated that his test gave a date of 1920 +/- a dozen years (or thereabouts), there were on the old boards loud cries from the 'Diary's detractors that this test must be flawed, he didn't know what he was doing, etc., etc. Had McNeill's results come up with, say, 1985 +/- a dozen years, the detractors would have been telling us what a wonderful piece of analytical procedure the test is. Rather like the (in)famous Hanratty Case, in which DNA proved his guilt but the tests were instantly rubbished by his supporters who claimed 'contamination'. Yet originally it was his supporters who pushed for DNA testing...can't have it both ways.

And good old Melvin Harris and his 'nest of forgers' - often referred to, never identified.

G

[Stewart P Evans]

Weird

It is the weird logic propagated in 'diary' world whereby any point or contention raised by the so-called 'anti-diary camp' is immediately turned around and a question bounced back.

Of course, there is no onus on anyone but the propagators of this nonsense and the reason it continues, as we all know, is that for some the 'diary' is their only claim to fame and each swathe of 'newbies' to the subject, knowing no better, re-start all the old circular and endless questions and debates. Anyone with any real knowledge knows that proper, definitive, tests have never been done, and probably never will be. No, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to waste good money and time investigating a patent nonsense that anyone with any sense realized the nature of many years ago.

For the foregoing reason alone I don't intend to go much further with this. Suffice to say there are certain people (and I have documentary proof) who have made a fair bit of money from this debacle. A certain leading Ripper author, who had failed to denounce the 'diary' for what it is, once said to me, 'Ah, but the 'diary' has brought a lot of people to the subject and they have become interested and bought my books.' There is a certain perverse sort of logic about that, but sad if the reason they fail to state their true belief arises from mercenary incentives.

Most of the sad old arguments are false and don't bear close examination and many go off at a tangent into debates that are nothing to do with proving the 'diary' genuine (an impossibility anyway). However, it's up to the individual as to how he chooses to waste his time and far be it from me to stop anyone who thinks there is any genuine mileage in this rubbish. By the way, anything which passes between Robert and me is private and nothing at all to do with these boards, why did you make such a comment?

[pinkmoon]

The diary could very well date to the 1880s but the problem still stands where has it been and how did it come to be in Mike barretts possesion untill these questions are answered it cannot be taken seriously I'm sorry for keep on saying this but if anyone has anything in their possession and they can't say where it's comes from or they have to keep on changing their story where it came from then it is dodgy.like I posted last night if Dan farson had launched the macnaughton memo on to us with I got it giving in a pub it wouldn't have been taken seriously and if there are any ex policemen or serving police men reading this how many times have you heard I got it from a man pub for an excuse of somebody you have arrested

[pinkmoon]

I think Stewart Evans has just made a valid point to many people have made too much money out of this diary and I think the money side has short circuted their common sense

[Stewart P Evans]

Uninformed

Goodness, Stewart, if Ripper authors applied this kind of rigour there would be a few less books on my shelf (and significantly fewer suspects for the crime)!
I don't recall you demonstrating so much moral conviction when naming Francis Tumblety as our man - his inconvenient days in gaol before and after Kelly's murder arguably suggestng there wasn't a shred of evidence against him?
There is a wonderful logic in the world of Ripperology - and only in the world of Ripperology - which states that we should be excited only by that which is pure supposition and groundless fancy, and that we should all abhor the mere possibility of anything as vulgar as evidence and substance.
The diary at lest exists. It may well be fraudulent, but we will simply never know whilst we have such dissent amongst the chattering Ripper classes.
Gladiator

Are you really that uninformed? You really do not know what you are talking about.

The Tumblety book was about a genuine suspect, named by a senior officer at Scotland Yard at the time of the murders and as such, yes, I do believe he is as good a suspect as any named and better than most. He was never 'in gaol', he was in police custody. There is such a thing as police bail and this I have fully described. There is also the later found interview with Tumblety that confirmed much of what I had conjectured.

However, I don't like arguing suspects as I prefer to be totally objective. The Tumblety book was the first of several I have written and the only book about a suspect. It is posts like yours that contributed to driving me from the boards before and, believe me, I have much to offer including material never before seen. But with nonsense like this, and some other idiocy I have recently had to put up with, I shall be leaving again.

The 'diary' is an obvious nonsense with no decent provenance whatsoever and I find your words insulting.

[Stewart P Evans]

Pointed Out

...
I don't recall you demonstrating so much moral conviction when naming Francis Tumblety as our man - his inconvenient days in gaol before and after Kelly's murder arguably suggestng there wasn't a shred of evidence against him?
There is a wonderful logic in the world of Ripperology - and only in the world of Ripperology - which states that we should be excited only by that which is pure supposition and groundless fancy, and that we should all abhor the mere possibility of anything as vulgar as evidence and substance.
...
Gladiator

You obviously do not know your subject. I pointed out in my book, and have many times over the years, that no hard evidence exists, or existed, against any suspect. It was a big problem for the police when, without witnesses to an actual murder, without catching an offender 'red-handed' and without a confession there was little they could do. Forensic science was in its infancy and they could not even identify blood as human, merely mammalian (which includes animals). We shall never know the identity of the murderer(s), but if you like fiction I suggest that you stick to novels.

[spyglass]

Hi all,
here we go again, the main FACT about the diary is that it has never at any point been proven as a hoax and it seems might never be.
There are authors out there who claim it has been and there are authors out there who claim to know and have knowlege of who did it, but still dont for some reason want to tell what they know.
I have always been opened minded on it.....but again it has not been proven that it is or that it is not for real.
But if it is a fake, then whoever did fake it...they done a bloody good job for it to last this long, and I secretly admire them.

[Gladiator]

.
But if it is a fake, then whoever did fake it...they done a bloody good job for it to last this long, and I secretly admire them.

Hi Spyglass,

Personally, I openly admire them for it. It has been a simply astonishing achievement to bring to market this hopelessly inappropriate article with its wholly inadequate history and still have the debate raging after these twenty bitter years.

Hats off to them, say I. And to all who have stood firm in the face of such criticism and defended the diary's case.

Gladiator

[caz]

Of course, there is no onus on anyone but the propagators of this nonsense and the reason it continues, as we all know, is that for some the 'diary' is their only claim to fame and each swathe of 'newbies' to the subject, knowing no better, re-start all the old circular and endless questions and debates. Anyone with any real knowledge knows that proper, definitive, tests have never been done, and probably never will be. No, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to waste good money and time investigating a patent nonsense that anyone with any sense realized the nature of many years ago.

The reason it continues, Stewart, is that nobody has yet been able or willing to demonstrate that the 'nature' of this patent nonsense is indeed a modern hoax conspiracy involving either of the Barretts. I know that Keith Skinner, as our mutual friend and co-author, would have been delighted if only you could have demonstrated this to him many years ago. He would not then have wasted his time investigating where it really came from. As a former policeman you are well aware that it's not what anyone thinks they know that counts, but whether the evidence exists to convince a jury. This is relevant in this case if you think you know that someone alive has been guilty of creating or knowingly passing off a forgery akin to the Hitler Diaries, which earned the forger a prison sentence.

By the way, anything which passes between Robert and me is private and nothing at all to do with these boards, why did you make such a comment?

Of course it's private, Stewart, and I have no idea what passes between you and Robert, nor was I asking. I merely presumed that anything you say on the boards which effectively rubbishes the views or work of Robert or Keith (neither of whom posts here), you will also have said to their face. If that's not the case I gladly apologise for my presumption.

Love,

Caz
X