Who were they?

[Scott Nelson]

Thanks Ike. Dodd would have eventually learned that something was taken from his house when the publicity kicked in. Did Mike visit Eddie to try to coerce him into silence?

[Iconoclast]

So Caroline, is the suggestion here that Mike may have ordered the maroon diary as a substitute to give to Dodd in case he came crying foul for theft?

In case anyone came crying foul for anything, Scotty, but - yes - probably Dodd (though Mike may not have known who might come knocking at his door - Eddie may not have said where he got the scrapbook from) ...

[Scott Nelson]

Whether the red diary was ordered in the process of trying to create a hoax, or in the process of handling and placing an item of suspected stolen property, it would still represent something 'dodgy' going on in Mike's world at the time.

So Caroline, is the suggestion here that Mike may have ordered the maroon diary as a substitute to give to Dodd in case he came crying foul for theft?

[caz]

You are literally defending THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER -- a blank book without dates -- and yet saying that such things are not referred to as diaries.

Use more water in your scotch, Ike, or more ice.

It was Mike who initially referred to the scrapbook [with its handwritten 1889 date at the end] as a "diary" when he spoke to Doreen. Jack the Ripper's "diary" to be precise.

It was Mike who asked Martin Earl for a Victorian "diary" dating back to the 1880s.

That's how Mike saw the scrapbook, with its separated entries throughout. But without the writing, it would have been RJ's 'blank book without dates' - and as such nobody would ever have referred to it as "a diary".

RJ's best bet would have been to argue that Mike was hoaxing a diary, so that's obviously what he was trying to obtain in March 1992, but he went about it in the wrong way and when he realised his mistake he toddled off to that auction sale and found an old book - which was absolutely NOT a diary, even in RJ's universe - with enough unused, undated pages, after removing the used ones at the front.

There you are, RJ. Have a freebie on me. It's nearly the weekend and I'm feeling generous.

However, others who knew in 1992 [pre-Feldy and the earliest newspaper headlines] that Eddie had found an old book in Dodd's house would refer to it variously as an "old book" signed by Jack the Ripper, or "the old book", or "a diary", or "Jack the Ripper's diary", or just "something that could be important", depending on the individual concerned.

RJ may want a stiff drink with his freebie now.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

It is only at the end of the journal he wishes for it to be found. If the writer is to be believed, it is the realisation of all that he has done wrong has caused an apparent regret. It is only then he identifies himself in any overt way.

Until that point the text is consistent with someone writing for their own enjoyment.

Dr Canter is primarily a criminal psychologist. That’s his expertise.

Your obsession with directions and admin is a reflection on you more so than the diarist.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

You are insistent on the certainty (which there is none) that all killers must document times, dates and all administrative tasks related to their actions. A killer does not document their crimes for your benefit but for theirs.


Your argument is remarkably similar to the answers I have received when I pointed out the lack of details in Swanson's Marginalia.

I quote from the scrapbook:

'I place this now in a place where it shall be found I pray whoever should read this will find it in their heart to forgive me.'

It seems he was not writing just for himself.

Where is there any mention of any route taken by the murderer?

Couldn't he remember any?



Maybe he didn't need to remind himself of dates or the admin he did. He wanted to remind himself of what he felt in the moment. That is what psychologists like Dr Canter find interesting in this document.


Is this the same Dr Canter who found it plausible that the murders were connected with Sabbath preparation but did not explain why someone into Sabbath preparation would commit a murder not only on the Sabbath, but the most important Sabbath of the year?



Why would he? He was not writing a walking guide.


It seems he could not remember where he had been.



The writer wrote for himself, not for you.


'I place this now in a place where it shall be found I pray whoever should read this will find it in their heart to forgive me. Remind all, whoever you may be, that I was once a gentle man. May the good lord have mercy on my soul, and forgive me for all I have done.

I give my name that all know of me, so history do tell, what love can do to a gentle man born.'


He indicates the opposite of what you claim.

[Iconoclast]

The sentiments expressed by PI1, above, are a classic case of “X cannot be authentic because if I created X I’d have done it very differently”.

Of course the author of the scrapbook was writing for the benefit of recalling his feelings at the time of his killings. We can tell that because that’s what he wrote about. The absence of details we would have liked to have is not evidence that his account is inauthentic, simply that he prioritised things which we would not have restricted ourselves to. And yet none of us are serial killers so how can we speak with such arrogant confidence about something we know so little of?

No, the scrapbook doesn’t magically go away because you find things in it you think you would not have solely focused on or because it lacks the sort of detail you think you’d have included. Maybe when you start your killing spree and then start documenting it, you might look at what you’d written and think, “Crikey, that’s nothing like I imagined I’d write about”. You can’t know for certain what Jack the Ripper’s key drivers were until you have walked a Whitechapel mile in his very quiet shoes.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please tell me that you are not arguing that a hoaxer with even the vaguest awareness of the case and of Whitechapel could not have chucked-in a pile of those details if he or she wanted to?

I mean, he doesn't actually mention any of the victims by name bar a late mention of 'Kelly'. Does that mean you think it was a hoax because it shows you that the author didn't know the names of the victims?

Where does your logic draw a line here?

The author's failure to mention any of the victims by name during his actual killing spree is such a clever touch if he were not Jack. It conveys brilliantly how the Ripper utterly dehumanised his victims so much that he saw no need to name them. They did not need to have names. They just had to be surrogates of his errant wife. Personally, I think that that is an amazing touch. No wonder Bruce Robinson was so impressed, and David Canter, and others.

I think you need to take another look at the scrapbook, assuming you ever have in the first place.

I don't need to take another look at the scrapbook.

If, as you insolently suggest, I had never read it, I would not have been able to make the points about it that I have made.

I thought you would be able to work that one out.

What you write about victims' names is irrelevant.

It is not the absence of the names of the victims that makes the scrapbook suspect, but the lack of detail in general - especially the routes taken by the murderer, especially when he made his exit from Mitre Square.

[erobitha]

Does the writer record the date on which he travelled from Liverpool to London, the date he started to rent a room in Middlesex Street, how he came to rent it, whom he rented it from, the date on which he vacated it, the date on which he travelled back to Liverpool?

You are insistent on the certainty (which there is none) that all killers must document times, dates and all administrative tasks related to their actions. A killer does not document their crimes for your benefit but for theirs. Maybe he didn't need to remind himself of dates or the admin he did. He wanted to remind himself of what he felt in the moment. That is what psychologists like Dr Canter find interesting in this document.

Does he record any of the routes the murderer took - for example, from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, or from Berner Street to Duke Street?

Why would he? He was not writing a walking guide.

Does he record any of his stalking - how he went out at night but decided not to go with anyone and why, and where such encounters happened?

He describes at least one other murder (possibly two). Stalking is something you are projecting onto him. We have not found anything conclusive on the potential other murders, but it does not mean they did not happen. Prostitute murders or murders of promiscuous women may have been wrongfully classed as accidents or suicides.

Does he describe his meetings with his victims and state where he met them - for example, did he meet Nichols in Whitechapel Road or Buck's Row?

Why would that detail make one jot of difference to how he felt? Why would he need to document that?

Did he meet Chapman in Hanbury Street?

You care for that detail to be included. Why would he?

Is this what you think gets him all worked up when he reads it back?

Did he meet Kelly in Dorset Street or somewhere else?

The lack of detail is obviously a warning sign.

The lack of details as you want them is a worrying sign only for your own narrative.

The writer wrote for himself, not for you.

[Iconoclast]

Does the writer record the date on which he travelled from Liverpool to London, the date he started to rent a room in Middlesex Street, how he came to rent it, whom he rented it from, the date on which he vacated it, the date on which he travelled back to Liverpool?

Does he record any of the routes the murderer took - for example, from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, or from Berner Street to Duke Street?

Does he record any of his stalking - how he went out at night but decided not to go with anyone and why, and where such encounters happened?

Does he describe his meetings with his victims and state where he met them - for example, did he meet Nichols in Whitechapel Road or Buck's Row?

Did he meet Chapman in Hanbury Street?

Did he meet Kelly in Dorset Street or somewhere else?

The lack of detail is obviously a warning sign.

Please tell me that you are not arguing that a hoaxer with even the vaguest awareness of the case and of Whitechapel could not have chucked-in a pile of those details if he or she wanted to?

I mean, he doesn't actually mention any of the victims by name bar a late mention of 'Kelly'. Does that mean you think it was a hoax because it shows you that the author didn't know the names of the victims?

Where does your logic draw a line here?

The author's failure to mention any of the victims by name during his actual killing spree is such a clever touch if he were not Jack. It conveys brilliantly how the Ripper utterly dehumanised his victims so much that he saw no need to name them. They did not need to have names. They just had to be surrogates of his errant wife. Personally, I think that that is an amazing touch. No wonder Bruce Robinson was so impressed, and David Canter, and others.

I think you need to take another look at the scrapbook, assuming you ever have in the first place.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I trust that you are not suggesting for even the briefest of moments that the scrapbook's lack of a dating system is some sort of signal that it is a hoax?

Please say you just weren't thinking that one through.

Does the writer record the date on which he travelled from Liverpool to London, the date he started to rent a room in Middlesex Street, how he came to rent it, whom he rented it from, the date on which he vacated it, the date on which he travelled back to Liverpool?

Does he record any of the routes the murderer took - for example, from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, or from Berner Street to Duke Street?

Does he record any of his stalking - how he went out at night but decided not to go with anyone and why, and where such encounters happened?

Does he describe his meetings with his victims and state where he met them - for example, did he meet Nichols in Whitechapel Road or Buck's Row?

Did he meet Chapman in Hanbury Street?

Did he meet Kelly in Dorset Street or somewhere else?

The lack of detail is obviously a warning sign.

[Iconoclast]

Please see my replies below.
Anyone writing such an account would have done so.
He did not.

I trust that you are not suggesting for even the briefest of moments that the scrapbook's lack of a dating system is some sort of signal that it is a hoax?

Please say you just weren't thinking that one through.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Stay on point, please. You made the comment that "It is the only diary I have heard of that does not contain a single date.".


You can call it whatever you like: a diary, scrapbook, or anything you care to call it.

Whatever you choose to call it is irrelevant to the point I made.

The writer could reasonably be expected to have given some dates.

Anyone writing such an account would have done so.

He did not.



In retrospect, I now realise that you did so in order to ingratiate yourself with Fishy ...


I have been accused of all manner of things - of being aggressive, arrogant, narrow-minded, stupid, prejudiced, libellous - you name it!

It makes a change to be called ingratiating.

And I suppose you know that to be a fact.

It could not be an assumption, supposition, or opinion of yours.

Could it?



The Victorian scrapbook makes no claims to be a diary. It's just a record of James Maybrick's thoughts and experiences.


It has nothing to do with James Maybrick.

It is a forgery.

I would remind you that you cannot produce any proof that the term 'one-off,' used in it to describe something unique, was in use in the English language in 1889.

The scrapbook, as you call it, is obviously not genuine.

[Iconoclast]

The writer relates that he travelled down from Liverpool to London, rented a room in Middlesex Street, and then gives accounts of various happenings, including the murders.
Whether you want to call it a diary or not, there are no dates in it for any of the events related.
The only time that I can recall that he gives some indication of the passage of time is when he claims that he killed Eddowes a quarter of an hour after Stride, which is clearly impossible as it would have resulted in Eddowes' body being discovered earlier than it was.
These are signs of a hoaxer at work.
The only joke is the diary/scrapbook, but it seems to be lost on you.

Stay on point, please. You made the comment that "It is the only diary I have heard of that does not contain a single date.". In retrospect, I now realise that you did so in order to ingratiate yourself with Fishy, but in doing so you made an utter fool of yourself because you fell for the old "Hold on, it's called the diary of Jack the Ripper but it's got no dates in it so how can it be a diary - must be a hoax!" syndrome when - off course - those of us who have been around these parts for more than two minutes recognised that old canard from three decades ago. It was called a 'diary' by the original publisher, Robert Smith, who wanted to flog as many copies of the book as he could. It's called marketing, if you're interested.

The Victorian scrapbook makes no claims to be a diary. It's just a record of James Maybrick's thoughts and experiences. You can call it what you want but please don't mock that it is commonly referred to as a 'diary'. We all know it ain't.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I cannot tell whether you are having a laugh or not, I really can't. It's really hard to work out as normally you're super-sensitive and unbearably serious and then you go and post what looks for all the world like some sort of weak joke? So I'm not sure whether your post requires an answer?

Okay, I'm going to go with the assumption that you are serious so - in response - if you could just remind us where in the Victorian scrapbook it claims to be a diary that would allow us to clarify things for you.

Cheers.

The writer relates that he travelled down from Liverpool to London, rented a room in Middlesex Street, and then gives accounts of various happenings, including the murders.

Whether you want to call it a diary or not, there are no dates in it for any of the events related.

The only time that I can recall that he gives some indication of the passage of time is when he claims that he killed Eddowes a quarter of an hour after Stride, which is clearly impossible as it would have resulted in Eddowes' body being discovered earlier than it was.

These are signs of a hoaxer at work.

The only joke is the diary/scrapbook, but it seems to be lost on you.