17th September to Diary handwriting comparisons

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hi again everyone!

Here (at last!) are some of those 17th September to Diary handwriting comparisons I promised you. Sorry they've have taken so long.

I'm not as certain with these as I am with the 22nd Nov postcard (more research needed), but I still think the similarity in the style of the handwriting andin regards certain words (The 'about,' 'loves' and 'nevers,' for example) is striking. Especially when we remember that the 17th Sept letter is supposed to be a fake and the diary's handwriting isn't suppossed to look like anything.





One thing you may notice about the 'time' from the 17th Sept letter is that it has the same, curious, flat-bottomed 'I' that the 'police' from the 22nd of Nov postcard has. The diary also contains similar flat-bottomed 'I's'.


Kind regards,

Tempus

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Sorry everyone!

This is obviously too small to make a real judgement. I'm having considerable trouble compressing the images to the correct size. I think I may have to come back and do it again. Blast!


apologies,

Tempus

[Kaz]

Cat and pigeon springs to mind...

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Here's a larger version.

[caz]

The problem is, Tempus, there are only so many ways that those combinations of letters can be formed.

While 'about', 'blood' and 'time' look impressively similar, the other three do not particularly - to my little eye anyway. And no doubt you were careful to highlight the best examples.

The other problem, of course, is that most people who have commented on the matter have convinced themselves - or been convinced by others - that this letter has been established as a modern fake, sneaked into the archives by some nutter with too much time on their hands, presumably to cause grief to ripperologists. So even if a similarity were acknowledged, the argument would be that the letter was a bandwagon hoax by someone who wanted to give a bit of much needed credence to the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

"about" looks similar to the way I'd write it if I still wrote in cursive. It seems to me it may be a man's sort of standard cursive. The others.... well, I see nothing there.

What's kind of lost here is that even if the same person who wrote the diary also wrote a few letters, it doesn't prove anything but an old hoax. It certainly doesn't bring Maybrick in closer to the argument.

Mike

[caz]

What's kind of lost here is that even if the same person who wrote the diary also wrote a few letters, it doesn't prove anything but an old hoax. It certainly doesn't bring Maybrick in closer to the argument.

Mike

Now that would be one hell of a story, wouldn't it Mike? Some hoaxer writes a ripper letter in September 1888, then when Maybrick is allegedly murdered by his wife the following May, in Liverpool, the same hoaxer thinks what larks he could have by turning him into the ripper in diary form? Blimey, and I had you down as closed-minded!

Love,

Caz
X

[curious]

Hi, Tempus,
You've certainly put a lot of time and effort working this up and getting it posted. Very commendable.

Since I know nothing about -- whatever the scientific study of handwriting is called, perhaps graphology -- I should not comment.

Since that never seems to stop anyone on these boards . . . (trying to be a little silly here, but that does not always come across).

While I do see some similarities, I would guess they are by different hands.

I can't see what you are calling "flat-bottomed" I's.

There appears to my eyes to be a different slant in about all the writing. In the Ls and Bs, the writers start at different places. The letter starts high with the loop, and the diary starts at the base line and goes up. The Ts in "time" are quite different with the slant and the rounded area following the "time" in the letter.

Since my two cents will no longer buy even a piece of gum, take it for what it's worth.

You have certainly spent much more time than I on this project. Congratulations again on the presentation and work you have put into this.

[The Good Michael]

Now that would be one hell of a story, wouldn't it Mike? Some hoaxer writes a ripper letter in September 1888, then when Maybrick is allegedly murdered by his wife the following May, in Liverpool, the same hoaxer thinks what larks he could have by turning him into the ripper in diary form? Blimey, and I had you down as closed-minded!

Really? Close-minded? I think Michael Maybrick had just the creative drive to have done just such a thing.


Mike

[curious]

Really? Close-minded? I think Michael Maybrick had just the creative drive to have done just such a thing.


Mike

Hi, Mike,
I haven't studied Michael Maybrick, would you please elaborate?

Thanks,

curious

[Tempus omnia revelat]

I merely offer these up for you to form your own opinion. I am confindent that this letter and, particularly, the 22nd of November postcard were written by the same person who wrote the diary.

That means - in the case of the 22nd Nov postcard at least - that the diary cannot be a modern forgery and that whoever wrote it must have sent at least one letter to the police of the time. That, surely, is of significance and deserves more investigation. but no, apparently it is as worthless as to be dismissed. Fair enough.

As for the 17th Sept letter, I will say once again that there is absolutely no evidence that this is a forgery. The way people spread this fact around like they have the authority of the Lord is staggering. Us pro- diarists would not be allowed to do this without evidence (hell, we can't even do it when we do provide evidence), so it mystifies me why everbody else is allowed to declare something a fake without the slightest murmur from anyone.


I think, perhaps, the answer to this conundrum lies in the fact that the two pieces of evidence that have been held up as a fake are the two pieces of evidence that would be most likely to rock the ripper community to its core. The 17th Sept pre-dating the first accepted use of the name Jack the Ripper, and the diary proving the identity of the killer. People, it would seem, have become to comfortable with the world of Ripperology to be uprooted now.

I will, however, return 'Oh Great Doubters' and provide you with evidence that you cannot deny - well, you'll probably have a good go, but still. I have three projects in the pipeline:


1) A letter at the PRO that I am confident will provide me with something linking back to Maybrick.

2) The writing on the wall of Kelly's bedroom (yes, it is there. I have infrared photos of a portion of it, but I need to return to enhance and photograph the rest.


3) Another, possible, 'FM'. I say 'probable', because I only have the 'M' part of it, I will need to go back to see if the 'F' is viable. The 'M,' however, is clear and is located on the same partition wall as the other, more famous, 'FM'.


Kind regards,

Tempus

[The Good Michael]

Curious,

According the Diary books, Michael Maybrick possibly signed the last will and testament of James Maybrick. This argument is used because JM's signature is so absolutely different from the diarist's. MM was a pretty famous composer living in London at the time. He composed one famous churchy song (the Holy City). Anyway, he was kind of implicated in both the diary book and in the Anne Graham book for all kinds of things.

Mike

[caz]

Hmm, I can't see how that works in the context of your suggestion that Michael could have written the 17th Sept letter and later the diary. Given that the signature on the will is 'so absolutely different' from the writing in the diary, this would argue just as much against Michael being the author as James.

And if Michael was disguising his own writing for the diary, he was in a better position than most to know what his brother's should look like (particularly if he did sign the will and made a convincing job of that).

Or are you just having a bit of fun with us?

Love,

Caz
X

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hi caz,


If you actually read the diary carefully, you will find that there is an inference by the diarist that it was not only James that was sending letters to the police but also Michael - especially poems. This has often been misconstrued as a mistake by the diarist that he thought Michael wrote the words as well as the music to his songs. This is not the case. He was simply saying that he is aware that Michael was sending items to the police and he was trying to outdo him. The giveaway is in the word 'Clueever/clever'. Have a look for yourself.

There are also two elaborate 'Fs' in the diary that have the general appearance of musical notes. Again, see for yourself.


Kind regards,

Tempus

[Tom_Wescott]

As for the 17th Sept letter, I will say once again that there is absolutely no evidence that this is a forgery.

You sure about that? Then please explain why George Lusk is being referenced in the letter as the head of the vigilance committee as early as September 17th.

You seem to be trying to establish a Victorian provenance for two items believed by all to be modern hoaxes by way of arguing they were written by the same hand. Don't you think such an argument merely strengthens the conclusion that both are modern hoaxes?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott