new info on the diary

[Scott Nelson]

What's G.U.T. stand for?

[GUT]

G'Day Scott

I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you, and I'd rather not do that.

GUT

[Sam Flynn]

Then Sam, don't forget to read Caz's rebuttal. I just read it and she mentions the Dickensian suggestion. Her response is different than mine because she doesn't necessarily believe the author went to America.
http://www.jamesmaybrick.org/pdf%20f...20article).pdf

Thanks for that link, too. Caz is always worth reading.

[caz]

Cheers, Sam and MayBea.

Dare I also suggest that the newer contributors to this topic might benefit from reading Ripper Diary - The Inside Story, by Seth Linder, Keith Skinner and myself, published in 2003 by Sutton. Just the known facts as at that time, regarding what had been claimed about the diary and watch over the previous decade, and by whom. As for the claims themselves, we left it up to our readers to judge truth from lies; genuine expertise from amateur or subjective opinion.

Don't worry, I don't make a penny out of any sales these days, and the book can be borrowed from the library if finances are tight:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_...ripper%20diary

Love,

Caz
X

[Amanda Sumner]

Cheers, Sam and MayBea.

Dare I also suggest that the newer contributors to this topic might benefit from reading Ripper Diary - The Inside Story, by Seth Linder, Keith Skinner and myself, published in 2003 by Sutton. Just the known facts as at that time, regarding what had been claimed about the diary and watch over the previous decade, and by whom. As for the claims themselves, we left it up to our readers to judge truth from lies; genuine expertise from amateur or subjective opinion.

Don't worry, I don't make a penny out of any sales these days, and the book can be borrowed from the library if finances are tight:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_...ripper%20diary

Love,

Caz
X

I've read your rebuttal and it is very persuasive. At least some of the arguments are.
The real stumbling block, for me, is the handwriting and that's not so easy to explain away in my opinion.
I shall take your excellent advice and read The Ripper Diary because, to be honest, I have only formed my opinions on what I have read in newspapers, the internet and what's been revealed on here.

Amanda

[caz]

Now that I think about it, new hoax is far more preferable to old. Old hoax seems to need a conspiracy and an insider and somebody planting it somewhere where it could only be found by electricians a century later. One, modern forger is far more tenable.

Hi MayBea,

The problem is that a modern hoax (defined as post-1987) would have needed more than just one forger's involvement, particularly if you believe the watch was designed to be a companion piece or bandwagon hoax. An old hoax could have been the work of just one person with inside knowledge of the ripper crimes and the Maybricks, whereas a modern one would have needed a hugely unlikely conspiracy involving one or both Barretts - hence the late Melvin Harris's assertions about a 'nest' of forgers. One forger would have been preferable but he knew it was not enough in the circumstances.

For those of us who accept that the diary (and perhaps the watch too - who knows?) was at one time in Battlecrease House, a modern hoax conspiracy, particularly one for financial gain, simply makes no sense and is not workable. Somebody would have had to plant the diary in the house and engineer its discovery, but everyone supposedly involved has always steadfastly rejected this ideal provenance, so it's hard to see how or why the supposed 'planter' ever imagined the scheme would work in reality or result in anyone making any money at all. Mike Barrett only made some by scoffing at the idea it had been in Maybrick's old home and claiming he was given it in good faith by a dead friend. Incidentally his wife Anne wanted no money at all from the diary, and only relented after they separated, when their literary agent advised her to take a share of the royalties for her daughter's sake.

When the marriage collapsed and the pressure from Feldman's intrusive inquiries became too much, Barrett's drinking increased and he claimed he forged the diary himself to take the power back. He had enjoyed all the initial attention but it had all got too much for him. Anne knew his forgery claims were complete rubbish and sought to limit the damage, but Barrett was no happier with her 'family' provenance for the diary than he had been with the Battlecrease one, as both effectively left him without his baby. He seems to have figured that if he couldn't stay centre stage as the man who had Jack the Ripper's diary and solved the mystery, he could only do so by playing the role of master forger.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I've read your rebuttal and it is very persuasive. At least some of the arguments are.
The real stumbling block, for me, is the handwriting and that's not so easy to explain away in my opinion.
I shall take your excellent advice and read The Ripper Diary because, to be honest, I have only formed my opinions on what I have read in newspapers, the internet and what's been revealed on here.

Amanda

Thanks Amanda.

However, at the very beginning of my rebuttal I make the point that I was not making a case for authenticity. One of the reasons for this is that very stumbling block, the handwriting. How much simpler life would be if the author had obviously disguised their own writing, or tried to copy a sample of Maybrick's. That would almost certainly have been exposed by reputable document examiners and would have shown a deliberate and serious attempt to deceive the reader.

As it is, there is no evidence that the author was remotely bothered about the handwriting issue, in which case I wouldn't rule out someone who was merely trying to yank the finder's chain, rather than fool anyone into thinking the confession was a genuine one.

I mean honestly, if another version of the Mona Lisa were to surface, which used paints and other materials consistent with the right age, but featured crossed eyes, a daft grin and missing teeth here and there, would anyone credit it as a serious attempt at fraud by an amateur faker, or just a poor practical joke?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I've little doubt that the Maybrick "diary" was the product of an indifferently-educated, unimaginative and untalented writer.

Hi Sam,

Of course, since there is nothing to suggest the real James Maybrick was anything other than an indifferently-educated, unimaginative and untalented writer, it would be rather hard to tell if our practical joker achieved this by happy accident or crafty design.

One can dumb down as easily as falling off a log, but one tries to dumb 'up' at one's peril.

Love,

Caz
X

[Steve S]

Got my copy from amazon for £5...

[Amanda Sumner]

I've just bought mine, used, for £3.66 !
Shall look forward to reading it...

[pinkmoon]

Thanks Amanda.

However, at the very beginning of my rebuttal I make the point that I was not making a case for authenticity. One of the reasons for this is that very stumbling block, the handwriting. How much simpler life would be if the author had obviously disguised their own writing, or tried to copy a sample of Maybrick's. That would almost certainly have been exposed by reputable document examiners and would have shown a deliberate and serious attempt to deceive the reader.

As it is, there is no evidence that the author was remotely bothered about the handwriting issue, in which case I wouldn't rule out someone who was merely trying to yank the finder's chain, rather than fool anyone into thinking the confession was a genuine one.

I mean honestly, if another version of the Mona Lisa were to surface, which used paints and other materials consistent with the right age, but featured crossed eyes, a daft grin and missing teeth here and there, would anyone credit it as a serious attempt at fraud by an amateur faker, or just a poor practical joke?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz,forger should have not claimed authorship of the letters sent to the police also why didn't he try to copy the writing of the dear boss letter never understood that.

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi caz,forger should have not claimed authorship of the letters sent to the police also why didn't he try to copy the writing of the dear boss letter never understood that.

Well, I shall wait until I read the book before I make any more comments.
As I stand at the moment, I do not get why Maybrick would have felt the need to change his writing at all.
He says he wanted the diary found, so, if it was a type of 'confession' why bother?
If he wrote it purely for his own enjoyment, to experience the thrill of reliving his crimes, why bother?

I am happy to be persuaded but, as I say, I shall read the book before I say any more.

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, since there is nothing to suggest the real James Maybrick was anything other than an indifferently-educated, unimaginative and untalented writer, it would be rather hard to tell if our practical joker achieved this by happy accident or crafty design.

Not to the abysmal level of much of the English contained in the Diary, Caz. But you know my views on that

(I really missed you at the Ripperconf, by the way. Hope to see you at another.)

[pinkmoon]

Not to the abysmal level of much of the English contained in the Diary, Caz. But you know my views on that

(I really missed you at the Ripperconf, by the way. Hope to see you at another.)

The English content isn't really the diarys main problem

[pinkmoon]

Well, I shall wait until I read the book before I make any more comments.
As I stand at the moment, I do not get why Maybrick would have felt the need to change his writing at all.
He says he wanted the diary found, so, if it was a type of 'confession' why bother?
If he wrote it purely for his own enjoyment, to experience the thrill of reliving his crimes, why bother?

I am happy to be persuaded but, as I say, I shall read the book before I say any more.

Hi Amanda my dear,I always thought some fake documents would turn up after the 1988 aniversary.I didn't expect it to turn up in Liverpool but I think the diary is a very old forgery and that Mr Barrett didn't come to own it through legal means.