Diary to Ripper letter handwriting comparison

[Simon Wood]

Hi Spy,

We all make mistakes, as the hedgehog said climbing off the scrubbing brush.

My "something of passing interest" may be of consequence, but only if we can establish JM's whereabouts during the said dates.

I know less than nothing about Maybrick; hence my question.

Regards,

Simon

[spyglass]

Hi Simon,
your so naughty sometimes, I amagin that you wrote the last post with a knowing smile,so rather than waiting for an answer...why not just tell us?
Lets just hope it is not simular to your Chapman tampered with photo exclusive some years back.

Regards

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Today I learned something of passing interest, so this is just a general question.

Has anyone ever established JM's whereabouts between 9th November 1888 and 11th May 1889?

Regards,

Simon

[BTCG]

Hi BTCG!

What author? Are you referring to Barrett? Or are you referring to the elusive Mr Powell I have heard so much about? Either way, I am happy to go head to head with anyone that claims to have written the diary. I will, if they agree, provide them with a list of questions for them to answer. If they answer them to the required standard, and provide handwriting samples for me to examine, I am perfectly happy to except this document as a fake. However, I shan't be holding my breath anytime soon.

I continue with the subject for three reasons. Firstly, because after nigh on twenty years, not one piece of definitve evidence has been produced to prove the diary is a forgery. Secondly, because the evidence from my own research (including the handwriting examples that I have shown) shows me that there is more to this document than the anti-diarists would have us believe and, thirdly, through examining this document I have become aware that James could've been involved in the crimes regardless of whether this document is a fake or not. I am perfectly happy in my conviction that James Maybrick sent letters to the police at the time.

Kind regards,


Tempus

Hi Tempus,

I am nearly done with the book, myself.

One one hand, I enjoyed it. As a modern 20/21st Century man (I write software for a living), although often a bit (to quote Ray Davies) of an Apeman, I do approach things in a logical manner. And as a logical person, several things bother me about the work, and I'll explain my thought process.

My first page publishing information reveals the book to be written by Michael Barrett and Shirley Harrison. Harrison is, of course, the 'hired gun' brought in to write the associated book. So our focus becomes the diary's owners, Michael and Ann Barrett.

One of the critical components of evidence is establishing a chain of custody. Evidence is generally not accepted if a chain of custody cannot be established. Enter our first problem.

When questioned about how it was that the document came to be in their custody, we are first told that the diary was a gift from a grateful but mysterious friend they met in a pub. When this did not satisfy, the story changed: it became a disguised delivery of an old family heirloom arranged by Ann to avoid inner-family conflict.

Finally, we are given two sworn affidavits by Michael Barrett outlining how he and Ann created the diary.

But if this wasn't enough, Barrett and his wife made one huge, glaring error: they relied on a mistake made by another Ripper author.

If you've never read this, now would be a good time:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mb-mc.html

The diary and book include the origins of the (now) famous Ripper poem:

"Eight little whores with no hope of heaven"

This is an oil & water type problem:the poem is a 20th Century work. It cannot exist in a 19th Century diary.

Here's the real issue:

It's one thing to make the claims a Patrica Cornwell makes against Walter Sickert. Peter Bower's work proves conclusively that Sickert, at very least, injected himself into the case by writing Ripper correspondence. Sickert himself, opened this door.

James Maybrick did no such thing. His inclusion is an obvious attempt to trade on the notoriety of the famous case against his wife. He is an innocent man who deserves better. Anyone who had a hand in this ought to be ashamed of themself.

[spyglass]

BTCG,
Can you please remind me who the author who admited to writing the diary twice is?
You have stated this twice?

Regards.

[Soothsayer]

But on the other side there has been no evidence to show that it is authentic !

Does that mean he shouldn't pursue the possibility of it?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi BTCG!

What author? Are you referring to Barrett? Or are you referring to the elusive Mr Powell I have heard so much about? Either way, I am happy to go head to head with anyone that claims to have written the diary. I will, if they agree, provide them with a list of questions for them to answer. If they answer them to the required standard, and provide handwriting samples for me to examine, I am perfectly happy to except this document as a fake. However, I shan't be holding my breath anytime soon.

I continue with the subject for three reasons. Firstly, because after nigh on twenty years, not one piece of definitve evidence has been produced to prove the diary is a forgery. Secondly, because the evidence from my own research (including the handwriting examples that I have shown) shows me that there is more to this document than the anti-diarists would have us believe and, thirdly, through examining this document I have become aware that James could've been involved in the crimes regardless of whether this document is a fake or not. I am perfectly happy in my conviction that James Maybrick sent letters to the police at the time.

Kind regards,


Tempus

But on the other side there has been no evidence to show that it is authentic !

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Tempus,

As someone with no 'bread to butter,' so to speak, I wonder why you spend so much time on a subject whose author has admitted (twice, no less) to forging, and if there remained any doubt, removed it himself by including, in a supposedly 19th century work, a verse penned in the 20th century?

Hi BTCG!

What author? Are you referring to Barrett? Or are you referring to the elusive Mr Powell I have heard so much about? Either way, I am happy to go head to head with anyone that claims to have written the diary. I will, if they agree, provide them with a list of questions for them to answer. If they answer them to the required standard, and provide handwriting samples for me to examine, I am perfectly happy to except this document as a fake. However, I shan't be holding my breath anytime soon.

I continue with the subject for three reasons. Firstly, because after nigh on twenty years, not one piece of definitve evidence has been produced to prove the diary is a forgery. Secondly, because the evidence from my own research (including the handwriting examples that I have shown) shows me that there is more to this document than the anti-diarists would have us believe and, thirdly, through examining this document I have become aware that James could've been involved in the crimes regardless of whether this document is a fake or not. I am perfectly happy in my conviction that James Maybrick sent letters to the police at the time.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[BTCG]

Hi caz!


I couldn't agree more. The argument that states that the handwriting is not Victorian in style just simply doesn't hold water any more. I think your description of 'twaddle' is one of the most apposite descriptions of this whole affair I have ever heard.


Kind regards,

Tempus

Tempus,

As someone with no 'bread to butter,' so to speak, I wonder why you spend so much time on a subject whose author has admitted (twice, no less) to forging, and if there remained any doubt, removed it himself by including, in a supposedly 19th century work, a verse penned in the 20th century?

[caz]

Hi Tempus,

The twaddle factor can be high on all sides when it comes to diary arguments.

What astounds me is how the same old twaddle gets regurgitated every few months or years, by yet another poster who thinks they are the first 'expert' to observe something which would have put the boot into the diary before it could even be published. The biggest load of twaddle comes from those who brag that they could have created a similar hoax over a wet weekend (or made similar scratches in a watch) and their efforts would still be discussed two decades later. Nobody ever tries it though. Or maybe they do and are too ashamed to show anyone the result.

The various specialists called upon over the last 20 years to give their professional views, openly and up for scrutiny by peers and public alike, who have given a 'not inconsistent' verdict regarding the book, the ink, the handwriting, the psychology, you name it, have not all been total idiots with career death wishes.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hi Tempus,

If nothing else, I hope this will serve to undermine the twaddle talked - and repeated by people who ought to know better - about the diary handwriting not looking nearly 'Victorian' enough.

Many of us have seen enough genuine examples from the period to know that the diary is at least consistent in this regard (if not much else!).

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz!


I couldn't agree more. The argument that states that the handwriting is not Victorian in style just simply doesn't hold water any more. I think your description of 'twaddle' is one of the most apposite descriptions of this whole affair I have ever heard.


Kind regards,

Tempus

[caz]

Hi Tempus,

If nothing else, I hope this will serve to undermine the twaddle talked - and repeated by people who ought to know better - about the diary handwriting not looking nearly 'Victorian' enough.

Many of us have seen enough genuine examples from the period to know that the diary is at least consistent in this regard (if not much else!).

Love,

Caz
X

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hi everyone! Back again.

I have taken the liberty of using the address side of the postcard (hope you don't mind, Simon) as another handwriting example, just as I did with the reverse side. I hope you think it was worth it.

Below is the address side of the postcard. Underneath the word 'police' I have placed an example of the same word from the diary. Underneath that is the same word again but with the 'P' from the 'police' in the postcard replacing the 'P' from the diary. The similarity, for me, is striking - particularly the 'olice' section of the word. The style and the way it has been placed on the paper are dead giveaways to the fact that this has been written by the same person.



Kind regards,

Tempus

[Jason]

when are you posting it TOR ?

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hi everyone!
Wasn’t going to show you this before I finished my report, but I sense some of you are growing impatient to see it and don’t wish to mess you around any further. All I will say is that I am perfectly prepared for some of you to be disappointed with what I have to show you and also for some of you to be completely dumfounded as to what is on display. That is why I wanted to explain it fully; I wanted you to understand that it is what I say it is, and what the diarist wanted you to see. I only hope that the photos come out well enough for you to understand what I am showing you. I will, however, try to give you a brief description of what you are looking at, and how I came to the conclusion, anyway.

Kind regards,

Tempus

P.S. I will place the ‘FM’ on a new thread, as I want to start afresh.