The Diary

[Steven Russell]

if you were alive in 1888 then i guess the local plod might be interested in speaking to you.......so yes i guess you might be a suspect

Hello, Jason.
But I wasn't alive in 1888 and that's my point. Perhaps the diarist wasn't either. That would not preclude him or her from offering up plausible explanations.

e.g. a modern forger could have said stuff like:
1) The woman in Mitre Sq. said my breath smelled so I cut off her nose,
2) The one in Hanbury St. had on revolting striped stockings, and
3) I encountered a dog in Goulston St. which barked and sniffed at the apron.

By Tempus-type logic, we might conclude:

1) Wow! Eddowes' nose was cut off and now we know why,
2) Wow! Chapman was wearing striped stockings. More factual accuracy!, and
3) Wow! No one has ever mentioned the dog so this must be information only the killer would possess!

The truth is that everybody knows about the nose (sorry) and stockings, and I made the dog up. Ditto the motivation for the rhinoectomy[?]. Simple. Doesn't prove a thing except perhaps my imaginary forger has read a book or magazine article. Or watches the telly.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Jason]

Tempus,
If I were to offer plausible explanations or surmises about why the Ripper did various things, would you regard me as a suspect?

Best wishes,
Steve.

if you were alive in 1888 then i guess the local plod might be interested in speaking to you.......so yes i guess you might be a suspect

[Fleetwood Mac]

I never said 'new information', Phil. The information in the diary has been there for everyone to see from the start. How that information was discovered is, of course, a matter for debate. But it is there.

It is also factual information that the diarist provides (for the first time in over one hundred years, incidentally) and which many people seem to ignore or just cannot be bothered to give answers to. Each of these items requires an explanation. I will give you some examples:

1) The diarist gives you an explanation as to why there were various items arranged around Annie Chapman's body. No other suspect does this. Fact! (If you wish an explanation of these items, you only have to ask.)

2) The diarist provides you with an explanation as to why the killer cut upturned V marks (or inverted triangles) into the cheeks of Catherine Eddowes. No other suspect does this. Fact!

3) The diarist also explains to you a) why there is a large F (in, incidentally, the exact spot where he said there would be one) on her left forearm, and b) why a killer who's - apparently - sole purpose was to kill the woman and then escape as quickly as he could, suddenly decided to waste time by pulling a piece of her clothing back across her body, scrunching it up, an then leaving it on top of it. Again, no other suspect does this. Fact!

4) The diarist also explains why someone was walking around the slummy backstreets of whitechapel, at two in the morning, wearing incredibly smart attire. NO OTHER SUSPECT DOES THIS. FACT!


All these pieces of information require an answer because they actually happened; they are all important to our further understanding of this case, and it would be foolish to ignore them. (particularly the chemise).


Kind regards,

Tempus

Translated as: some facts and possibilities are given interpretation by an unknown hand.

I would imagine that a small stoat equipped with a fountain pen could give you an interpretation of sorts.

[Fleetwood Mac]

There's been investigations galore. There is no way from Hell...er...in Hell that Mike's got the skill to forge a Liverpool Library card application, let alone a 60+ page document.

My parents drummed into me that you should never underestimate anyone.

Regardless, the content of the diary could have been penned by anyone in possession of a couple of brain cells.

[Steven Russell]

Tempus,
If I were to offer plausible explanations or surmises about why the Ripper did various things, would you regard me as a suspect?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Iain Wilson]

The diarist is the most likely suspect because he provides motivations for things that the Ripper did? Let's assume that the diary isn't a modern forgery. Does that mean that the author is a more likely Ripper than other suspects because he provides an insight into why certain actions were taken?

Of course not! Just like any other writer he could simply be inventing fiction!

The fact that the Druitt, Kosminski, Bury, Deeming, Gull, Sickert, Lewis Carroll and a whole load of other suspects - some plausible, some ridiculous - don't provide this level of detail is because they didn't leave written or verbal accounts of their motivations! Just because they don't provide this level of detail doesn't make them less viable suspects than the diarist - it's the more concrete facts of the case (motive, oppertunity, profile etc) that determine this, not scribblings in a diary!

[Phil H]

Most of these are Aunt Sally's!!

No other suspect "does" these things because no other "suspect" has left anything like the fake diary - which is "too good to be true".

Anyone can make explanations up about the items near Chapman or why they were walking the streets. It's called invention. Novelists do it all the time!!

But as far as I am aware there is NOT A SINGLE NEW FACT in the whole creation. By that I mean no single new point that has made the field cry out: "Yes that's right!" there isn't a single element that could not have been extracted from books about JtR - and recent ones.

Phil H

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Especially considering that - if true - he would have provided you with information and explanations about the nature of the crimes that no one, to this date, has offered up before.

Precisely what NEW INFORMATION does the diary provide please? I say none - except in regard to cod psychoanalysis.

Phil H

I never said 'new information', Phil. The information in the diary has been there for everyone to see from the start. How that information was discovered is, of course, a matter for debate. But it is there.

It is also factual information that the diarist provides (for the first time in over one hundred years, incidentally) and which many people seem to ignore or just cannot be bothered to give answers to. Each of these items requires an explanation. I will give you some examples:

1) The diarist gives you an explanation as to why there were various items arranged around Annie Chapman's body. No other suspect does this. Fact! (If you wish an explanation of these items, you only have to ask.)

2) The diarist provides you with an explanation as to why the killer cut upturned V marks (or inverted triangles) into the cheeks of Catherine Eddowes. No other suspect does this. Fact!

3) The diarist also explains to you a) why there is a large F (in, incidentally, the exact spot where he said there would be one) on her left forearm, and b) why a killer who's - apparently - sole purpose was to kill the woman and then escape as quickly as he could, suddenly decided to waste time by pulling a piece of her clothing back across her body, scrunching it up, an then leaving it on top of it. Again, no other suspect does this. Fact!

4) The diarist also explains why someone was walking around the slummy backstreets of whitechapel, at two in the morning, wearing incredibly smart attire. NO OTHER SUSPECT DOES THIS. FACT!


All these pieces of information require an answer because they actually happened; they are all important to our further understanding of this case, and it would be foolish to ignore them. (particularly the chemise).


Kind regards,

Tempus

[Phil H]

he provides you with explanations and details to do with the crimes that no other suspect is able to give you.

Again - such as?

Phil H

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Not really. Even if he were proven to be the diary's author, we would have no way of known WHEN he would have written it - other than sometime between 1888 and his death.

Think of the amount of people who wrote Ripper letters during the crimes; if this was a contemporary creation, it could simply be an elaborate version of one of these - a case of someone wanting to get involved in the sensation taking place in the capital. Or, when you consider how many folks went to the police confessing to being the murderer when they were nothing of the sort, maybe this was something similar.

In short, proving Maybrick was the author does NOT prove Maybrick was the killer, or even make him a likely suspect.

No your right. As I answered your point before: proving maybrick wrote the diary does not make him the Ripper. It would, however, mean that it wasn't a modern forgery and was created by someone who exsited at the time - thus putting an end to the modern forgery theory. Secondly, (and I'll say it again)it does make him the most likley candidate seeing as how he provides you with explanations and details to do with the crimes that no other suspect is able to give you.

I think it may do us all good, perhaps, if the some one from the anti-diary camp were to give a (sensible) list of reasons as to why they think it is a forgery, instead of the pro-diarist camp endlessly coming up with new evidence that is continually dismissed or just plain ignored.

[RavenDarkendale]

Re the initials on the watch:

First whoever did it had to know the names of the victims - did he?

Then he has to chose:

Nichols polly or Mary Anne of just Mary?

Annie Chapman - known by various names.

Stride - Liz, Elizabeth? the authorities took sometime to work out who she was.

Eddowes - had been using a variety of noms-de-business including Kelly recently. was also known by her man's surname.

Mary Jane/Jeanette - we don't even know what her right name was.

So how did the "engraver" happen to get all the sets of initials exactly as we would recognise them today?

From a books says I.

Phil H

Hi Phil

I find the watch more unbelievable than the Diary and it is at best on shaky ground. Again, analysis tends to prove the scratches are old enough, but it doesn't make it real.

Raven Darkendale

[Phil H]

Especially considering that - if true - he would have provided you with information and explanations about the nature of the crimes that no one, to this date, has offered up before.

Precisely what NEW INFORMATION does the diary provide please? I say none - except in regard to cod psychoanalysis.

Phil H

[Phil H]

Re the initials on the watch:

First whoever did it had to know the names of the victims - did he?

Then he has to chose:

Nichols polly or Mary Anne of just Mary?

Annie Chapman - known by various names.

Stride - Liz, Elizabeth? the authorities took sometime to work out who she was.

Eddowes - had been using a variety of noms-de-business including Kelly recently. was also known by her man's surname.

Mary Jane/Jeanette - we don't even know what her right name was.

So how did the "engraver" happen to get all the sets of initials exactly as we would recognise them today?

From a books says I.

Phil H

[Iain Wilson]

True Iain. But it would make him the most likeley candidate, wouldn't it.

Not really. Even if he were proven to be the diary's author, we would have no way of known WHEN he would have written it - other than sometime between 1888 and his death.

Think of the amount of people who wrote Ripper letters during the crimes; if this was a contemporary creation, it could simply be an elaborate version of one of these - a case of someone wanting to get involved in the sensation taking place in the capital. Or, when you consider how many folks went to the police confessing to being the murderer when they were nothing of the sort, maybe this was something similar.

In short, proving Maybrick was the author does NOT prove Maybrick was the killer, or even make him a likely suspect.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

...or that he was a troubled fantasist? Even if it can be proven that Maybrick was the author, it doesn't make him the killer.

True Iain. But it would make him the most likeley candidate, wouldn't it. Especially considering that - if true - he would have provided you with information and explanations about the nature of the crimes that no one, to this date, has offered up before.


Kind regards,

Tempus