Who were they?

[Trevor Marriott]

I dont know have a horse in the diary race my own personal opinion is that it is a fake and was hoaxed in the way described in Barretts affidavit, which I am led to believe has never been conclusively disproved.During the course of my cold case review, I came across the following and I am curious to know who the ripperolgists were?

"Evidence came to light which showed that several well-known Ripperologists who were represented by Robert Smith had been initially asked by him to inspect the diary and had held views that were in direct conflict with the publicity statements being used by Robert Smith to promote the diary. However, all of these Ripperologists had signed confidentiality agreements, so they were forced to remain silent, as were the Sunday Times who were left in limbo having made initial payments to Robert Smith but were legally powerless to disclose their findings at that time after also having signed a confidentiality agreement"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[StevenOwl]

That's odd - I seem to recall pretty much every prominent Ripperologist voicing their opinions on the Diary back in 1993, and only Colin Wilson came out and said he thought Maybrick wrote it.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Phillip Sugden made this observation - A reading of the diary still leaves me baffled as to how any intelligent and reasonably informed student of the Ripper case could possibly have taken it seriously. There were those well versed in the subject, men like Nick Warren, Tom Cullen and Melvin Harris, who saw through the hoax from the beginning. Yet it is astonishing how many experts were fooled and allowed their names to be used in the promotional literature.

Regards Darryl

[jason_c]

An undoubted hoax. I can't believe I ever took it semi-seriously. I agree with the Sugden comment above. Without going into the diary's dubious provenance or science the chances of the most famous serial killer in history leaving such a document behind is extraordinarily small.

[Abby Normal]

I beleive the only prominent ripperologist who(still) thinks the diary could be authentic is Keith Skinner? If he dosnt hold this belief and or there are others who do My apologies, and it would be interesting to know who still does, if any.

[Iconoclast]

I beleive the only prominent ripperologist who(still) thinks the diary could be authentic is Keith Skinner? If he dosnt hold this belief and or there are others who do My apologies, and it would be interesting to know who still does, if any.

Keith Skinner told me as recently as about a year or so ago that he remains focused on Druitt as our man. From my exchanges with him, I feel I can confidently say that:

• He does not believe that the Barretts had anything to do with the scrapbook's creation; and
• He remains deeply intrigued by how it came to be: that is, Paul Begg's How, When, and Why (as I recall his triumvirate of one-word questions was) which is what largely maintains his interest in this most controversial of artefacts.

I don't know of any of the canonical (i.e., published) 'Ripperologists' who argue for authenticity but obviously I know of at least one non-canonical commentator who does so fervently and has written a brilliant free book on the subject (with even brillianter update due out in 2025). There are also posters on this site who are brave enough to throw off their Kevlar and declare for Maybrick.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I dont know have a horse in the diary race my own personal opinion is that it is a fake and was hoaxed in the way described in Barretts affidavit, which I am led to believe has never been conclusively disproved.During the course of my cold case review, I came across the following and I am curious to know who the ripperolgists were?

"Evidence came to light which showed that several well-known Ripperologists who were represented by Robert Smith had been initially asked by him to inspect the diary and had held views that were in direct conflict with the publicity statements being used by Robert Smith to promote the diary. However, all of these Ripperologists had signed confidentiality agreements, so they were forced to remain silent, as were the Sunday Times who were left in limbo having made initial payments to Robert Smith but were legally powerless to disclose their findings at that time after also having signed a confidentiality agreement"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think, Trevor, it would be reasonable to assume that these were primarily the Ripperologists who were filmed debating the scrapbook for Feldman's video (so Messrs Begg, Howells, Fido, etc.).

The question I would ask is what was the actual 'evidence' in this instance (that is, how did whoever wrote the piece you cited know for certain that some or all of certain Ripperologists held differing views to that of the publisher?)? And what publicity statements of Smith were they objecting to? If it was the claim of established authenticity, then that proved to be a reasonable objection which Smith himself ended-up acknowledging by covering it over with a sticker during the launch of the first edition.

Ike

[Trevor Marriott]

I think, Trevor, it would be reasonable to assume that these were primarily the Ripperologists who were filmed debating the scrapbook for Feldman's video (so Messrs Begg, Howells, Fido, etc.).

The question I would ask is what was the actual 'evidence' in this instance (that is, how did whoever wrote the piece you cited know for certain that some or all of certain Ripperologists held differing views to that of the publisher?)? And what publicity statements of Smith were they objecting to? If it was the claim of established authenticity, then that proved to be a reasonable objection which Smith himself ended-up acknowledging by covering it over with a sticker during the launch of the first edition.

Ike

Well, when the s..t hit the fan did any of those ripperolgists you mention go public stating it was a fake? or were they restricted by the non-disclosure documents they had signed?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

Keith Skinner told me as recently as about a year or so ago that he remains focused on Druitt as our man.

Hi Ike.

You, Caz Brown, and Jay Hartley have all made this same announcement in recent memory, which strikes me as a little odd, though I can't quite explain why.

Did Feldman misreport Keith's views, or was Keith a later convert to the Druitt theory?



This is just idle gossip--ignore it if you like, but having studied the Druitt theory for many years, I'm always interested in hearing other's views.

[rjpalmer]

Well, when the s..t hit the fan did any of those ripperolgists you mention go public stating it was a fake? or were they restricted by the non-disclosure documents they had signed
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Martin Fido gave the diary a pretty good bashing--including stating his opinion that it was a recent fake--on Radio 4's Kaleidescope on 9 September 1993, so once the diary was published, those who signed the NDA were able to say whatever they wanted.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike.

You, Caz Brown, and Jay Hartley have all made this same announcement in recent memory, which strikes me as a little odd, though I can't quite explain why.

Did Feldman misreport Keith's views, or was Keith a later convert to the Druitt theory?



This is just idle gossip--ignore it if you like, but having studied the Druitt theory for many years, I'm always interested in hearing other's views.

It is far from impossible that I have misremembered a comment Keith may have made. It was definitely in an email and I vaguely recall asking him what his position on Jack was and he replied that he favoured Druitt, but - at this distance - I can't say for certain that he was categorical about it or simply postulating a 'best guess'.

[Iconoclast]

Martin Fido gave the diary a pretty good bashing--including stating his opinion that it was a recent fake--on Radio 4's Kaleidescope on 9 September 1993, so once the diary was published, those who signed the NDA were able to say whatever they wanted.

Martin Fido definitely went for the jugular on the scrapbook which originally hardened me firmly against him because I felt that he was making simplistic arguments which did not necessarily follow or were not categorically proven (such as Annie Chapman's uterus being taken by Jack and his local butcher guild telling him you could not eat a uterus when - for all we know - Jack also took small pieces of flesh or muscle with him and he fried that not her uterus); and I was further hardened against him because I suspected that he was trying too hard to distance himself from the scrapbook as though somehow he would be tarnished by mere association and his academic career would suffer. Like Pavlov's dogs, I felt that academics had learned from the roasting of Hugh Trevor-Roper to take a distant, non-committed stand unless that stand is the status quo and the thing you are talking about can be said to be a fake which - bizarrely - is probably still to this day seen as the 'safe' error to make.

I don't recall any other noted Ripperologists (by my definition in my earlier post) who worked on Feldman's research, book, and video claiming that the scrapbook was a definite fake. In the case of Colin Wilson, of course, the reverse was true - he came out for Maybrick and was recorded saying so on Feldman's video.

[erobitha]

Hi Ike.

You, Caz Brown, and Jay Hartley have all made this same announcement in recent memory, which strikes me as a little odd, though I can't quite explain why.

Did Feldman misreport Keith's views, or was Keith a later convert to the Druitt theory?



This is just idle gossip--ignore it if you like, but having studied the Druitt theory for many years, I'm always interested in hearing other's views.

I find it so amusing you use Feldman as a bastion of truth to support your claims when it suits you and then declare him an outright fantasist when it suits you.

Well, if it suits you, I would wager that perhaps in the interests of shutting Feldman up after two hours of jabbering, Keith might have decided a neutral stance would be the best option in that scenario.

I believe he still feels Druitt is the best candidate, and that is his opinion. But he is also smart enough to know it could still be quite an important document if we can figure out how it came to be.

The Barretts sure as hell didn't write it.

[John Wheat]

I find it so amusing you use Feldman as a bastion of truth to support your claims when it suits you and then declare him an outright fantasist when it suits you.

Well, if it suits you, I would wager that perhaps in the interests of shutting Feldman up after two hours of jabbering, Keith might have decided a neutral stance would be the best option in that scenario.

I believe he still feels Druitt is the best candidate, and that is his opinion. But he is also smart enough to know it could still be quite an important document if we can figure out how it came to be.

The Barretts sure as hell didn't write it.

How do you know the Barretts didn't write the diary?

[erobitha]

How do you know the Barretts didn't write the diary?

Sorry John, "in my opinion".