'Michael is very cluever'

[Sally]

Hang on - are we quite sure that Sickert didn't write the Diary? That could work.

[Graham]

Well, I don't know about you Phil, but that convinces me. The Diary must be genuine, and the work of none other than... JACK THE RIPPER!!!!

Sigh.....

That spells the end of this Forum, then. Bye all!

G

[lynn cates]

observation

Hello Miakaal. You may be onto something with the “u” here.

I just read an article about the papyrus that claims Jesus was married. Some scholars are now considering it a fake. Why? Because of grammatical errors carried forward from another source. The source was available online.

When trying to ascertain whether a student paper is plagiarised, I look for the occasional twit who copies and pastes a Wiki article, leaving the links in AND in blue. Dead give away.

But many forgeries are more subtle. I wonder whether you are familiar with Stewart’s book about “Letters from Hell”? A good many of the letters contain one or more phrases from “Dear Boss,” “Saucy Jack,” or “From Hell.” I think that may alert us to the origins of the writer’s intentions.

Similarly, if one were forging a diary (speaking hypothetically) and one were convinced that the GSG were authentic, would it not be prudent to reproduce the added vowel in an attempt to dovetail the diary with the GSG?

Likewise, if one thinks the “Dear Boss” missive genuine, might not one “borrow” some words/phrases there from? For example, how many times does the diarist use the phrase “funny little” in the diary?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Of course it could just be the same handwriting that wrote "Juwes" in Wentworth dwellings!!!! you know both sets of handwriting LOOK the same and they both contain the letter "U"....

Well, I don't know about you Phil, but that convinces me. The Diary must be genuine, and the work of none other than... JACK THE RIPPER!!!!

Sigh.....

[miakaal4]

Okay My Juews joke was as flat as a pancake, but it's in reponse to the negatives that any study of the diary always attracts.
Tempus knows that Maybrick was a word player, who liked to call himself clever a lot. On this occasion he spells it wrong, that is ground for further thought if nothing else. We, who do not rule out Maybrick, have our own paths to follow. If they sound too eccentric, don't wander down.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tumpus,

Anti-Diarist Brigade? If this means that we don't believe the diary to be genuine..guilty..membership herewith.

However, apart from when enhanced discussion appears here and there, I tend to generally ignore all Diary references, and I suspect the "Brigade" as you call it/them, made their minds up about the Diary a long long time ago.

There is no brigade determined to make their life resolve one which eats munch munch munch into the veracity of the Diary. Those who don't believe in it, just let it drift into hopeful obscurity for the most part.

best wishes

Phil

[miakaal4]

Now then Phil, don't you start confusing me. I thought you were somewhat suspicious of the Journals authenticity. What you have just pointed out is very interesting mate. Perhaps it was Juews.

[Phil H]

Of course it could just be the same handwriting that wrote "Juwes" in Wentworth dwellings!!!! you know both sets of handwriting LOOK the same and they both contain the letter "U"....

[Sally]

Now I've seen it all

Tempus.

There is no 'anti-diarist brigade'. There is no organised campaign against the proposed authenticity of the diary.

There are only people who would like some actual evidence for a change in the place of personal conviction and fantasy.

Do you seriously think that Jack the Ripper wrote the word 'clue' in his diary to lead the clever (or should that be 'cluever') detectives amongst us to the truth?

Seriously?

That Dan Brown. He has a lot to answer for...

[RavenDarkendale]

Let's see if I get this correct. You find one word that "looks funny" and think it a clue? The word is NOT misspelled, the first e in "clever" is tightly closed, usually a sign of writing very swiftly.

Stick to your other arguments, Tempus. They are at least plausible whether one agrees with you or not. This is a stretch right up there with R. Wallace's Lewis Carroll anagrams.

Considering the overall tone of the diary, if the writer had wanted to draw attention to any particular passage, he would have written "Clue!" and drawn an arrow to the line. Remember this writer is an egomaniac, thinks himself more clever than anyone else.

It's kind of like Zodiac. He states that one of his coded messages contains his identity. It probably does. Zodiac is that certain he is more clever than the investigators. Maybrick, or whomever wrote the diary has the same overinflated ego.

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

[Tempus omnia revelat]

It seems we are dismissing it. Oh dear.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Wanted to start a few threads over the coming days on other interesting things to note about the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

Firstly, there is the interesting anomaly that occurs on page 249 of the diary (I have mentioned this before on a previous thread). I’m not sure whether or not anyone has spotted this before, but I suspect not as, otherwise, the anti-diarist brigade would have been using it as proof that Michael Barrett forged the diary. The text runs as follows...

‘so help me God my next will be far the worst, my head aches, but I will go on damn Michael for being so cluever [sic] the art of verse is far from simple. I curse him so.’

And here is an enlargment of the offending word form the diary.




As you can see the word 'clever' has what looks like and added letter ‘U’ conveniently placed between the ‘L’ and ‘E’, thus spelling the word ‘clue’. I am fully aware, after studying the diary for some time, that the writer of the diary frequently misspells, or adds what looks like extra letters to, certain words, but I do not believe this is what has happened in this case. To add an extra letter that just so happens to spell the word clue is far too much of a coincidence, I’m afraid. No, the diarist is trying to tell us something. But what?

As I say, to the anti diarist it could be yet one more clue that the diary is forged: ‘Michael (Barrett) is very cluever’ should’ve set the alarm bells ringing for them long ago.

It could also be argued that this proves that it is an older forgery, made around James by his brother Michael. Or perhaps it is not a forgery and Michael is simply telling you that he is the ripper.

Or maybe, just maybe, there is the possibility that Michael was also responsible for sending letters and, more importantly, verse to the police (etc.) and James is simply making you aware of that fact.

Maybrick talks about outdoing his brother through writing verse on a number of occasions in the diary. As such, people have claimed that the diary is a forgery based on the fact that Michael was only responsible for the music (not true), not the verse. However, what if James is not talking about his brother’s work but is referring to the verses that he knows his brother is sending. Maybe they are both trying to outdo one another in some sort of brotherly competition or bet. After all, there are several letters that refer to the fact that JtR has an ‘accomplice’ or ‘brother in trade’ as one interesting letter - that has been linked to Maybrick before - puts it.

Whatever the reason, I still believe, in this instance, that the letter ‘U’ in ‘cluever’ is no mistake. The diarist is trying to tell us something, and we would be foolish to dismiss it.

Kind regards,

Tempus