new info on the diary

[MrBarnett]

Hi All,

I hope this is not a silly newbie question.

James_J appeared on here, seemingly very assured and knowledgeable, citing the 'withholding' of the empty matchbox as key evidence of the diary not being an historical fake. Then Frank comes up with an 1888 press report which mentions the match box. My question is: has Frank made an amazing discovery or is James_J not as knowledgeable as he appears?

MrB

[MayBea]

But it needn't be either/or. If the wag who composed this overlong, flowered up confession was a fan of G&S humour, with inside info about that empty match box, he could also have known the Josh Billings piece and matched up the two in his mind.

Billings seems to have been popular at the time so it's possible. Match box empty doesn't seem to hold anything as an argument anymore, although I'll admit it was an interesting anomaly worthy of discussion at one time.

What about Hammersmith? Anyone hammer that one out yet?

What about Hammersley? This link says Hammersley is the origin of Hammersmith, not Hammerschmidt. http://www.houseofnames.com/Hammersm...ry?A=54323-292
There is a male C.J. Hammersley in Liverpool in 1881 and a Martha Hammersley in 1891.

[Frank]

If the police held back the tin match box, empty, why did the Echo of 4 October mention it:

THE MURDER DISCOVERED

Inspector Edward Collard, of the City of London Police, was next examined. He said - At five minutes before two on Sunday last I received information at Bishopsgate Police-station that a woman had been murdered in Mitre-square. After dispatching the intelligence to headquarters and to Dr. Gordon Brown, I proceeded to the Square. I there found Dr. Sequeira, several police officers and a body of a woman lying in the north-west corner of the Square. The body was not touched until the arrival of Dr. Gordon Brown. He, however, arrived shortly after I got there. The medical gentleman examined the body, and Sergeant Jones afterwards picked up , on the left side of the deceased three small black boot buttons, a small metal button, a metal thimble and a small mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. The body was afterwards removed to the mortuary. There was no money in her pockets. There was some tea and sugar, a piece of flannel, some soap, a cigarette case, and an empty match-box in her pocket. The portion of an apron (produced) was what deceased was wearing, and corresponds with the piece of apron which has been found in Goulston-street. Chief Detective McWilliams arrived at Mitre-square soon after the murder was discovered. He was accompanied by a number of detectives, and they made inquiries at the various lodging-houses in Spitalfields, and several men were stopped and searched in the street, but without any satisfactory result. I have a house-to-house inquiry made in the vicinity of Mitre-square (continued witness) to see if we could find any person who heard or saw anything unusual in the square that night.

[Chris]

Can you say with a straight face that this was the scenario the police were working on when deciding not to mention this one item?

What's the evidence that they did?

[caz]

The Diary is a joke. We agree. Ha ha.

So could you comment on something that was no joke at the time, Chris? I asked why you thought the police held back the 1 Tin Match Box, empty from every newspaper account, if the killer could not have been expected to know it existed.

Any ideas, since it was you who introduced the straw man argument about the killer wasting precious time at the scene going through the victim's possessions in the darkness, coming across the match box and finding it empty?

Here you are:

Either the killer - in that pitch-black corner of Mitre Square, with no time to spare at all - conducted a very detailed search of Eddowes's possessions and ascertained that the matchbox was empty...

Can you say with a straight face that this was the scenario the police were working on when deciding not to mention this one item?

Come on, Chris, I know your mind is sharper than that. Ha ha.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thank you, caz,
For a while there, I thought I had a Google Miracle to match Mike Barrett's "library miracle". Your suggestion was much better.

Hi May,

But it needn't be either/or. If the wag who composed this overlong, flowered up confession was a fan of G&S humour, with inside info about that empty match box, he could also have known the Josh Billings piece and matched up the two in his mind. Each one of us must absorb thousands upon thousands of literary references and song lyrics during our lives - unless our name is Mike Barrett.

Love,

Caz
X

[Steve S]

Hello James , Is it so far beyond the realms of possibility that the Author was indeed privy to inside information that was not in the public Sphere ..
just because it was not revealed to the masses , it does not necessarily have follow that the killer was the only one to know ..

cheers

moonbegger

A valid point..........

[James_J]

Good to see that some pro-Diarists are still interested in the mystery. Until we can uncover new evidence, I believe the Diary will continue to divide opinion.

James.

[Chris]

It was a prank, a spoof, a burlesque, a hoax, a practical joke ...

The Diary is a joke. We agree. Ha ha.

[MayBea]

Hi May,
I'm sorry I didn't thank you for providing that Josh Billings example. It just goes to show you can rarely tie a few short words down to a definitely ascertained source, and usually one's biases are on full display when one tries.

Thank you, caz,
For a while there, I thought I had a Google Miracle to match Mike Barrett's "library miracle". Your suggestion was much better.

As a pro-Diarist, I thank you and wish I could come up with an equivalent anti-Diary suggestion to return the favour. I'll try to keep my eyes and mind open.

[moonbegger]

The possibility of an antiquated forgery is extremely thin, if not impossible. References made by the author of the Diary were not publicly known before 1984 & not published until 1987. There is no conceivable means by which a forger, operating at or around the time of the Ripper crimes, could have gained sufficient knowledge of the case to include references such as the empty tin matchbox. It is either genuine or a modern forgery.

Several references within the Diary were not publicly known before 1984 and not published until 1987. I draw specific attention to the tin matchbox found with the body of Catharine Eddowes - evidence which was deliberately withheld from the public sphere. Further off-hand references to obscure private details of the case also strengthen the historical integrity of the Diary. These facts are critical.

Hello James , Is it so far beyond the realms of possibility that the Author was indeed privy to inside information that was not in the public Sphere ..
just because it was not revealed to the masses , it does not necessarily have follow that the killer was the only one to know ..

cheers

moonbegger

[Magpie]

In response to the final comment, made by Magpie, do you care to elaborate ? Graphology has been included and exhibited in numerous legal proceedings and professional consultancies. While I do accept that there is debate concerning the accuracy of graphology, the inclusion of yet another professional opinion, in favor of the diary, must be included.

Kind Regards & Best Wishes! James.

Sorry, in the US at least, graphology is not admissible in court. Any graphologist who testifies as an expert is doing so only in relation to document authentication and are not allowed to provide any sort of testimony outside that scope. So graphologists may advertise that they have extensive court experience, but it's not as a graphologist.

[Magpie]

I acknowledge and accept that graphology is not a dependable form of evidence. The graphologist who examined the Diary in 1992 was Hannah Koren. She is a forensic document analyst for a security department of the Israeli Government and has presented evidence in many fraud trials throughout Europe. I included her professional opinion of the Diary due to her extensive experience with document related cases and inquiries.

Best Regards, James

Forensic document analysis is a legitimate, well documented discipline--graphology is pseudo-scientific claptrap. Ms Koren's qualifications as a the former do nothing to validate anything she says when acting as the latter.

It's like a neurosurgeon moonlighting as a phrenologist.

[pinkmoon]

So, he didn't buy it nor did he win it.... he nicked it from the back of their van!!??

Hi kaz,I thank you for saying what I dare not and I think that has to be the most logical conclusion.

[James_J]

You each make great and interesting points! I clearly represent the other camp - believing that the Diary is genuine. I appreciate your arguments and you are perfectly entitled to disagree.

I intent to continue researching questions and theories about the Diary & hope you can provide more intriguing and fascinating insights!

Best Regards, James.