Why I find the diary implausible

[Phil H]

I certainly have never dismissed the "diary" because of how it emerged. Indeed, I know little about that.

Rather, it is the intrinsic nature of the work - a photographic album used for a purpose for which it was not designed and with the first several pages removed! That , in itself, for me is a problem that has to be surmounted.

Secondly, I would expect any REAL "diary" or account emanating from "Jack" himself, to include elements that would set of an "OF COURSE!!!" moment - something said, or described that makes one see how the pieces of the puzzle fit together, in a "right" way, which we have never seen before. That did not happen (at least for me). What I mean by that is that the author reveals something that could have come from no other source and fits the facts precisely - indeed, makes the facts we knew gleam more brightly.

What we got was a first-personalised account of the available secondary sources.

Later, I had no option but to recognise that the "writing on the walls" at Miller's Court relies on an rather unintelligent viewing of the famous picture, not on how someone who was in the room and unaware that any picture would be taken, would have written.

That said, provenance is, of course, the sine qua non of acceptability. But even if that was proved to an acceptable standard, I would still say it was a work of fantasy not of reality, based on content.

Phil

[Damaso Marte]

I certainly have never dismissed the "diary" because of how it emerged. Indeed, I know little about that.

Rather, it is the intrinsic nature of the work - a photographic album used for a purpose for which it was not designed and with the first several pages removed! That , in itself, for me is a problem that has to be surmounted.

Secondly, I would expect any REAL "diary" or account emanating from "Jack" himself, to include elements that would set of an "OF COURSE!!!" moment - something said, or described that makes one see how the pieces of the puzzle fit together, in a "right" way, which we have never seen before. That did not happen (at least for me). What I mean by that is that the author reveals something that could have come from no other source and fits the facts precisely - indeed, makes the facts we knew gleam more brightly.

What we got was a first-personalised account of the available secondary sources.

Later, I had no option but to recognise that the "writing on the walls" at Miller's Court relies on an rather unintelligent viewing of the famous picture, not on how someone who was in the room and unaware that any picture would be taken, would have written.

That said, provenance is, of course, the sine qua non of acceptability. But even if that was proved to an acceptable standard, I would still say it was a work of fantasy not of reality, based on content.

Phil

This is precisely the kind of posts I wanted to see in this thread - the substance of the diary (or lack thereof), not the millionth discussion of provenance

[The Good Michael]

This is precisely the kind of posts I wanted to see in this thread - the substance of the diary (or lack thereof), not the millionth discussion of provenance

What you want doesn't matter to many of us. Just being honest.

Mike

[Stephen Thomas]

I didn't join Casebook to cause trouble or upset anyone but I think too many people have made too much money out of this diary.

Ho ho. Is that so? Name one.

[pinkmoon]

the first diary book by shirley harrisons and Paul Feldmans book I seem to remember sold very well at the time must have generated a few quid

[Graham]

According to Caz and her co-authors (Ripper Diary - The Inside Story), Barrett had received monies totalling £47000 by August 1994, and apparently blew the lot. Legal expenses also contributed towards his coming out of the whole episode with nowt. Shirley Harrison, as a professional author, also made some money from her book, but I can't find a figure - not that it's any of my business anyway. So yes - money was made from the Diary, but probably not as much as might be supposed. Maybe Caz can add something to this.

Feldman, as I understand it, blew a sum well into 6 figures on his, it has to be admitted, obsession with the bloody Diary, and had little or nothing to show for it. In fact, I understand he attempted to take his own life because of it. Yet, and I don't give a bugger what anyone else thinks, his book "Jack The Ripper - The Final Chapter" is most definitely worth a read, not just with regard to the Diary, but also concerning new information he unearthed about Maybrick and the accusation and trial of Florence Maybrick. It ought to be required reading by anyone who's prepared to offer opinions regarding the Diary, its origins and its meaning.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Good post graham it's nice to find some one who actually agrees that money has been made from this.

[caz]

If that diary had turned up with the last story of it been from Anne barretts family in the first place there wouldn't have been a problem.

Not for you, maybe, pinky, but it's not so much the timing but Anne's inability to prove the diary existed before Mike brought it to London. If she had been able to do that, it would hardly have mattered when that proof emerged. It still wouldn't have shown who wrote the thing, when or why. The lack of provenance is just one of many, many sticks that can and have been used to whack the diary with.

I started a thread when I first came on hear asking if any one knew how far the police investigation got regarding diary no one has posted back.

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read any of my responses. Scotland Yard didn't get anywhere at all. They investigated the various diary 'personalities' back in late 1993 and could find no evidence of deliberate fraud, or anyone whose handwriting matched. They concluded their investigation by weakly going along with certain 'experts' and agreeing that the diary was probably of recent origin, but nothing more could be ascertained.

Like I keep saying if you have something in your possession and you can't say where it has come from or you have to lie where it's come from then it is dodgy bent corrupt nicked stolen pinched fabricated .

But fabricated when, and by whom? Why automatically presume that the 'finder' of something like this must have been involved at the beginning with its creation, when there are any number of ways they could have acquired it from somewhere or someone, in good or bad faith, and be entirely ignorant of where it came from, who it really belonged to and who actually authored it?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It should never have been published before it could be authenticated.

In which case, of course, it would probably never have been published.

Along with all other suspect ripper books, presumably Phil (and 'suspect' can be taken in two ways ).

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Anybody with half a brain cell who had a hand written diary in a victorian book which confesses to been jack the ripper would think this is going to worth a fortune let's make some money I would so would you nothing wrong with that.Would I risk destroying its credibility by lying where it had cone from the answer to that is no .I find nothing wrong in authors been rewarded for their hard work it's just when the starting thread of a discovery like this diary is based on a lie.

What if you were worried that it must have belonged to someone else (which it almost certainly would have), and you had to come up with some kind of claim to ownership before you could start making all the filthy lucre you would expect if it turned out to be a genuine confession to the murders?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Later, I had no option but to recognise that the "writing on the walls" at Miller's Court relies on an rather unintelligent viewing of the famous picture, not on how someone who was in the room and unaware that any picture would be taken, would have written.

Once again, Phil, I'm taken aback by your distinctly unintelligent reading of the diary text, which at no point mentions any "writing on the walls" at Miller's Court, unless you honestly think 'Left it in front' means the same as 'Left them behind'.

If so, it's one of the most bizarre readings of the English language I think I have ever seen on casebook.

Simon Wood is the theorist who will not be blamed for nothing, having apparently been the first person in modern times to 'see' initials on the wall behind Kelly's bed in the photo (which has been knocking around since Nov 9 1888). If the diary author 'saw' them too, he/she sensibly steered clear of any direct references.

That said, provenance is, of course, the sine qua non of acceptability. But even if that was proved to an acceptable standard, I would still say it was a work of fantasy not of reality, based on content.

No problem with that. Even the perfect provenance wouldn't turn the handwriting into Maybrick's or turn Sir Jim into Jack. So I remain puzzled as to why provenance is routinely brought up as a major issue that would have resolved anything - apart from perhaps how Mike got his paws on the thing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Stewart P Evans]

As I understand it...

...
I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read any of my responses. Scotland Yard didn't get anywhere at all. They investigated the various diary 'personalities' back in late 1993 and could find no evidence of deliberate fraud, or anyone whose handwriting matched. They concluded their investigation by weakly going along with certain 'experts' and agreeing that the diary was probably of recent origin, but nothing more could be ascertained.
...
Caz
X

As I understand it the detective sergeant from NSY went to Liverpool to carry out an investigation into the nature of the complaint. Such investigations are very expensive (not least of all in paying for such an officer's time and the loss of a valuable officer in London) and when no injured party could be established (you need an i.p. to establish a crime) it was deemed to be fruitless to continue the investigation.

[pinkmoon]

As I understand it the detective sergeant from NSY went to Liverpool to carry out an investigation into the nature of the complaint. Such investigations are very expensive (not least of all in paying for such an officer's time and the loss of a valuable officer in London) and when no injured party could be established (you need an i.p. to establish a crime) it was deemed to be fruitless to continue the investigation.

Very helpfully Stewart I don't suppose you know roughly when that was not the exact date but just the month and year .cheers

[caz]

I think you understand it correctly, Stewart. If you ask me, it was all rather a waste of taxpayer's money to get Scotland Yard involved. I'd have thought the local Liverpool police could have done the same job if anyone thought it necessary or worth the expense.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Very helpfully Stewart I don't suppose you know roughly when that was not the exact date but just the month and year .cheers

You don't read my posts, do you Pinky?

Late 1993 - October 20 to be precise, was when the Yard first dispatched two detectives from its Organised Crime Squad to Liverpool to interview a number of people connected with the diary.

Love,

Caz
X