Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hi Ike
    Has there been a more recently written book about the diary? I remember getting Inside Story a few years ago (by Seth Linder?) I got the Mike Covell book but it's more of a research tool. I just wanted a bit of an up to date, state-of-play on the diary debate (current thought etc). Any suggestions?

    Regards
    HS
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      Hi Ike
      Has there been a more recently written book about the diary? I remember getting Inside Story a few years ago (by Seth Linder?) I got the Mike Covell book but it's more of a research tool. I just wanted a bit of an up to date, state-of-play on the diary debate (current thought etc). Any suggestions?

      Regards
      HS
      Hi Herlock,

      'Inside Story' was Linder, Morris, and Skinner. The Morris bit was Caroline Morris who you've just been exchanging posts with (she's Caz). It is the most balanced view you will get of the known facts about the journal.

      Other than that, you're really looking at Harrison II (the American Jack update to her original book) and, of course, Feldman (who was amazing, but woefully excitable and then overly simplistic in equally frustrating measures).

      As you mention, there is Mike's book (he posts here from time to time too) and Christopher Jones' very helpful 'The Maybrick A-Z'.

      Of course, you could cut through all the obfuscation and doubts by reading my brilliant analysis 'History vs Maybrick' (it's another thread under Maybrick). It's a simply superb read, if you're into that sort of thing, in which I solve the mystery of the Goulston Street graffito whilst talking about football a lot. I really should have charged for it.

      Ike
      The Honest Voice of Reason if Occasionally not Altogether Coherent (it's the Gin Probably)
      Iconoclast
      Materials: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

      Comment


      • Hello Ike

        I didn't know that Caz was Caroline Morris. I think that I've been on the same thread as her on the JTR furum where I post as Michael Banks ( yes, believe it or not, Herlock Sholmes isn't my real name!) Now that you've gotten over that revelation thanks for the info. I've got the books that you mention except for the Maybrick A-Z which I'll look for.

        I'll definately have a look at your article this evening.

        Isn't it about time someone wrote a new book? An update/overview of the diary and Maybrick. Perhaps you can persuade Caz? Maybe even collaborate?

        Thanks again. I look forward to updating myself on all things diary/watch/Maybrick.

        Herlock
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          Hi Caz

          I can't understand why you say that the diarist wouldn't have worried about Maybrick ever being placed elsewhere? This is a strange forger who isn't bothered about being found out by a stray fact and who doesn't even make an effort to copy the handwriting. That's not really the definition of a forger.
          Regards
          HS
          Hi HS,

          Well it's a fact that whoever penned the thing made no attempt to copy Maybrick's handwriting. So it's not really a forgery in that sense. If the author was that bothered about it, but had no access to any authenticated examples, would they have gone ahead with the project, knowing it would fall at the first (and last) hurdle on that basis alone?

          The diary would also have been placed in Maybrick's house with no guarantee that it would one day be found and subsequently published. For instance, had Michael Maybrick or anyone close to the family found it, I imagine it would have been destroyed without further ado. The one thing that might make sense is if it was written more for jolly or mischief than for fame or fortune, by some wag who did it for the personal satisfaction of imagining the reaction of whoever would come across it, at whatever time. It certainly caused a pretty how-de-do, didn't it?

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          Last edited by caz; 06-07-2017, 05:17 AM.
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            Isn't it about time someone wrote a new book? An update/overview of the diary and Maybrick. Perhaps you can persuade Caz?
            Ahem, watch this space...

            Time will reveal much.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Hi Caz,

              It certainly caused a pretty how-de-do, didn't it?
              Most apt.

              Rgds,

              Graham
              We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                Ahem, watch this space...

                Time will reveal much.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Time will perhaps also reveal those who have been telling porky pies about their involvement with Barrett and the diary

                Comment


                • Hi Caz

                  The handwriting, for me, has always been the thing that favours authenticity of the diary. It could have been written by a non-ripper James Maybrick of course. He could have seen it as revenge against Florence. He plays out a 'revenge' in his mind through the diary whilst thinking that after he was gone, and the diary was discovered, Florence would suffer the stigma of being 'the woman who was married to JTR ( with people no doubt saying "she must have known.)
                  I hope that you do write that book Caz. Has anyone ever written a book exposing this 'amateurish fake?) or is the evidence against it too scanty?
                  Open minds are needed.

                  Regards
                  Herlock
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                  “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    Hi Caz

                    The handwriting, for me, has always been the thing that favours authenticity of the diary. It could have been written by a non-ripper James Maybrick of course. He could have seen it as revenge against Florence. He plays out a 'revenge' in his mind through the diary whilst thinking that after he was gone, and the diary was discovered, Florence would suffer the stigma of being 'the woman who was married to JTR ( with people no doubt saying "she must have known.)
                    I hope that you do write that book Caz. Has anyone ever written a book exposing this 'amateurish fake?) or is the evidence against it too scanty?
                    Open minds are needed.
                    But the diarist's handwriting doesn't match Maybrick's.

                    The diary is also erroneous in its content. The Ripper ritualistically butchered Mary Kelly but the killer fudges up where he placed her breasts. He said they were placed on the bedside table when in actuality they were placed separately about the body. Of course, the pro-diarists will attribute this to memory failure on the part of Maybrick, but this begs the question why someone would want to afford the diarist the benefit of the doubt. After all, the preponderance of evidence is on the diarist to prove its authenticity and the fact it fails on a basic detail of Jack's gruesome masterpiece should be telling.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                      But the diarist's handwriting doesn't match Maybrick's.

                      The diary is also erroneous in its content. The Ripper ritualistically butchered Mary Kelly but the killer fudges up where he placed her breasts. He said they were placed on the bedside table when in actuality they were placed separately about the body. Of course, the pro-diarists will attribute this to memory failure on the part of Maybrick, but this begs the question why someone would want to afford the diarist the benefit of the doubt. After all, the preponderance of evidence is on the diarist to prove its authenticity and the fact it fails on a basic detail of Jack's gruesome masterpiece should be telling.
                      Hi Harry D

                      I know that the handwriting doesn't match so my question has always been: what kind of forger doesn't even bother to copy the handwriting? It's like someone forging a Van Gogh but painting it in Turner's style. It makes no sense that any forger would do something that would immediately cause people to doubt its authenticity. On the other hand is it totally impossible that Maybrick, who otherwise saw himself as a gentleman, might act as though the ripper was his Mr Hyde. His dark half. Hence a different handwriting. I'm not saying that he was schitzophrenic but we know that people with multiple identities use different hand writing styles.
                      As for the breasts. I really can't see this as too much of an issue. A man has just torn a woman to shreds in some kind bloodlust orgy. There are body parts everywhere. He write up his diary who knows how long after the event. At the very least, hours. Surely this is nitpicking on a huge scale to think that he could have mistaken which parts he put where whilst in a frenzy of mutilation.
                      I believe that I said earlier that I'm not saying that the diary is categorically true. My point is that people who are confident that it's a forgery have had 26 years to come up with just one fact, only one, that categorically disproves the diary (or the watch for that matter) and the fact is that they simply haven't. They might do so tomorrow but they haven't yet. Unanswered questions aren't sufficient. I just don't understand why some people, and I'm not accusing you of this Harry, see disproving the diary as some sort of sacred quest for the good of humanity. My view has always been quite straightforward. My life will be changed not one iota if the diary is disproven or proven. I just require more than just half a dozen questions for which we have no definitive answer as yet.
                      Whether people like it or not this 'amateurish fake' still lives.

                      Regards
                      Herlock
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • It's time for this piece of Ripperological monkeyshines to be taken off life-support.
                        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                        Comment


                        • Just one properly disproving fact would do the job.

                          Regards
                          Herlock
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • There are many, if you look closely.
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • If you could name one I'd be interested. Genuinely. I just haven't heard one yet.

                              Herlock
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                Just one properly disproving fact would do the job.

                                Regards
                                Herlock
                                I love this guy!

                                Ike
                                A Fully-Fledged Herlock Sholmes Fan
                                Iconoclast
                                Materials: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X