Vote the Diary

[Pcdunn]

Maybe Robinson will delve into the Child of Mary and James scenario, and even do a DNA test with a Maybrick descendant. I know the Mary Jane Wilson/Arthur John Sullivan side have previously committed to a test. Short of exhuming MJK, this presents an obvious alternative.

Another inconvient baby? Plus more DNA tests? Part of me is intrigued, while some part of me is saying "Really"??!!

[MayBea]

At least, it won't be DNA of indeterminate origin on objects of indeterminate origin. It'll be DNA of actual people being matched for familial relationship.

DNA Ancestry can determine up to 5th cousin.

We know James fathered, at least, 7 children, so was quite fertile, and was cut off by his wife in his later years.

[IchabodCrane]

Not wholly modern, surely? If the hoaxer(s) had used the late 1980s ripper books they'd have needed for some of the information in the diary, they could have learned that MJK's breasts were not left on the table, for instance, and would not have had 'Sir Jim' reading the papers and repeating this error, then later recalling that he had thought of putting them by her feet. Why get it wrong and then put it half right? They would have read that one breast was indeed found by her foot, while the other was under her head. If they failed to absorb this 'new' information, how did they arrive at the foot afterthought? If they read it but were not sure what was correct, why mention the position of the breasts at all?

Love,

Caz
X

100% same thoughts here. The placement of the breasts make a modern forgery seem as unlikely as Maybrick being the Ripper.

[DirectorDave]

A modern forgery in my opinion.

The providence is as bad as it gets..."bloke in a pub gave it to me".

The text is written on a photograph album, with pages removed.

The ink has not passed scrutiny, indeed has from what I've read failed scrutiny.

The claim that "Dear Boss" is genuine, then the shifting to suggest it might be claiming the "Lusk Letter" instead.

The fact the document seems to be "in hiding".

In my opinion Mike Barrett authored it, Ann wrote it in an attempt to make money. I see no reason why Barrett is seen as incapable of writing it...he was a writer, owned a Word Processor (in 1985)...was known as a "man of letters" in his own locale at least.

Barrett's admittedly rather comical appearance and imbecilic nature seem to be giving him a free pass to not being the author, it is perhaps such disdain for the proletariat in various forms that allowed the Whitechapel murderer to evade justice in the first place.

[Darryl Kenyon]

A modern forgery which should have been dismissed pretty quickly. But unfortunately it snowballed with certain people joining the bandwagon. R.I.P to Melvin Harris and all the work he did in denouncing said diary

[Iconoclast]

A modern forgery in my opinion.

The providence is as bad as it gets..."bloke in a pub gave it to me".

The text is written on a photograph album, with pages removed.

The ink has not passed scrutiny, indeed has from what I've read failed scrutiny.

The claim that "Dear Boss" is genuine, then the shifting to suggest it might be claiming the "Lusk Letter" instead.

The fact the document seems to be "in hiding".

In my opinion Mike Barrett authored it, Ann wrote it in an attempt to make money. I see no reason why Barrett is seen as incapable of writing it...he was a writer, owned a Word Processor (in 1985)...was known as a "man of letters" in his own locale at least.

Barrett's admittedly rather comical appearance and imbecilic nature seem to be giving him a free pass to not being the author, it is perhaps such disdain for the proletariat in various forms that allowed the Whitechapel murderer to evade justice in the first place.

Goodness me, it is deep convictions such as these - based on opinion and generalised disbelief - which ensure that the journal remains easily disbelieved, not because the journal in itself has been disproven.

You don't make reference to the expanded provenance (of Anne Barrett) which takes the journal right back to Edith Formby and 1888/89 (whether you believe that provenance or not, that is what it now is). Nor do you add the astonishing aside that Florence Maybrick - on leaving gaol in 1904 - adopted the surname Graham.

The author of the journal chose to use a photograph album. Strange choice, it is true, but hardly proof of a forgery. If the photgraph album were so compelling of a forgery, how are we still having the debate 24 years later? And counting!

"The ink has not passed scrutiny, indeed has from what I've read failed scrutiny." Anyone who has read the various books on the journal will agree that the ink has both its authenticators and its distractors. The jury is out.

The journal claims first a verse, then reference to having given the world the infamous name, then claims a second version of the verse. Each of these is corroberated by the evidence (see my History vs Maybrick thread if you're unsure to what I refer). The name was given in a letter dated September 17, 1888 written in a hand with clear echoes of that which wrote the journal. The fact that "Dear Boss" came eight days later means that the authenticity of "Dear Boss" is irrelevant. Whether it was written by a journalist or by the journalist (see what I did there?) is irrelevant because the journal can be seen to be referring to the unpublished, long-forgotten September 17 letter not the famous September 25 one. And even if we did not have the September 17 letter (but thank goodness that we do), it is merely the current fashion to believe that "Dear Boss" was written by a journalist. Current fashion does not a fact make. In much the same way as it used to be a fact that there were seven canonical victiims, time has shifted that to five. In time, it may eventually become more or less than five, but we should not confuse current musing with known fact.

"The fact the document seems to be "in hiding".". I don't understand this comment - could you clarify, please?

"I see no reason why Barrett is seen as incapable of writing it...he was a writer, owned a Word Processor (in 1985)...was known as a "man of letters" in his own locale at least." Seriously, everything in life is relative. Good luck with your MIke Barrett as local writer theory.

The journal has shown over 24 years that it cannot be as easily dismissed as you attempt to do. If it were that easy, it would have been conclusively done. The fact that in 2016 we are still able to have the debate tells you that this thing cannot be so easily shaken.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

A modern forgery which should have been dismissed pretty quickly. But unfortunately it snowballed with certain people joining the bandwagon. R.I.P to Melvin Harris and all the work he did in denouncing said diary

If only you (or anyone else) were able to show conclusively that the journal is a forgery, we would all happily concur.

Until that moment comes, we (probably just I) keep our vigil and keep believing that it could well be the real deal.

Ike

[Darryl Kenyon]

If only you (or anyone else) were able to show conclusively that the journal is a forgery, we would all happily concur.

Until that moment comes, we (probably just I) keep our vigil and keep believing that it could well be the real deal.

Ike

I thought that you had to prove that someone was guilty rather than not guilty. Nowhere in the diary does it prove , or even come close to proving James Maybrick was guilty.

[Iconoclast]

I thought that you had to prove that someone was guilty rather than not guilty. Nowhere in the diary does it prove , or even come close to proving James Maybrick was guilty.

It rather obviously cuts both ways, Darryl. If you or anyone else states that the journal is a forgery you either just state it and leave it at that or you make your case for why you believe that to be so. If you just state it, people will wonder upon what criteria you have ddismissed the journal and if you then provide it, you will have it challenged if it is not criteria which actually prove your claims (i.e., if it's fundamentally just your opinion).

Similarly, if I or anyone else state that the journal is authentic, we either state it and leave it at that or else we make our case for why we believe that to be so.

The argument that the onus sits with the pro-journal camp to prove the journal is true is relevant only for a court of law. This Casebook is not a court of law, therefore we can quite appropriately ask you to back up your assertions with some sort of case.

Ike

[Geddy2112]

Just to settle in the demons in my head...

Is Maybrick still a good suspect without the watch and diary?

[StevenOwl]

Just to settle in the demons in my head...

Is Maybrick still a good suspect without the watch and diary?

Without the diary I believe Maybrick would never have come to light as a possible suspect. For argument's sake, let's say that the diary never surfaced but in the last 20 years someone saw a photo of JM and thought he looked like the common public perception of JTR and decided to look into him, just as a 'what if...'. I still don't think there's anything there for him to be named as a credible suspect, but as we know there isn't anything in the public domain that makes it impossible for him to have been the Ripper either.

[Iconoclast]

Just to settle in the demons in my head...

Is Maybrick still a good suspect without the watch and diary?

No, he is about the least likely candidate for Jack.

[DirectorDave]

Hi Ike.

Goodness me, it is deep convictions such as these - based on opinion and generalised disbelief - which ensure that the journal remains easily disbelieved, not because the journal in itself has been disproven.

I'm more than wiling to accept that opinion, my opinion is the driving force behind my conclusion that this is a modern fake, but what are we left with? Lies, obfuscation and common sense seem to have to be set aside before proceeding, ultimately (almost) everyone is left to judge the story on it's merits, fewer people can judge the people involved and fewer still have access to the document itself. As for deep convictions, I'm pretty sure in my 7 years on casebook this is my first ever comment on the diary.

You don't make reference to the expanded provenance (of Anne Barrett) which takes the journal right back to Edith Formby and 1888/89 (whether you believe that provenance or not, that is what it now is). Nor do you add the astonishing aside that Florence Maybrick - on leaving gaol in 1904 - adopted the surname Graham.

Correct, I didn't. If it can be proved that Anne is in fact related to the Maybrick family there would be something worth talking about. A few photographs that apparently "have similarities" and turning up at a Maybrick family reunion is not enough to make that particular rabbit hole appealing for me to enter.

The author of the journal chose to use a photograph album. Strange choice, it is true, but hardly proof of a forgery. If the photgraph album were so compelling of a forgery, how are we still having the debate 24 years later? And counting!

I think a photograph album is not a strange choice, Victorian books are hard to come by, the Author came by the Album, removed the first few pages...makes perfect sense to me. The fact it is a photo album proof in itself of forgery? No...just another mark (a big mark imo) in the "fake" column. A quarter of a century later we are still discussing it does not mean anything, we are still discussing the original "Ripper" correspondence 5 quarters of a century since they were received. Just because we cannot unquestionably rule out any Ripper letter in no way means any or all are genuine.

"The ink has not passed scrutiny, indeed has from what I've read failed scrutiny." Anyone who has read the various books on the journal will agree that the ink has both its authenticators and its distractors. The jury is out.

No...the jury has been sent home. The diary is not on trial, it's not "innocent until proven otherwise", we don't need "reasonable doubt" to prove it's authenticity we need verifiable proof of it's authenticity to take it seriously, if we had that, which we don't, there would be no debate.

The journal claims first a verse, then reference to having given the world the infamous name, then claims a second version of the verse. Each of these is corroberated by the evidence (see my History vs Maybrick thread if you're unsure to what I refer). The name was given in a letter dated September 17, 1888 written in a hand with clear echoes of that which wrote the journal. The fact that "Dear Boss" came eight days later means that the authenticity of "Dear Boss" is irrelevant. Whether it was written by a journalist or by the journalist (see what I did there?) is irrelevant because the journal can be seen to be referring to the unpublished, long-forgotten September 17 letter not the famous September 25 one. And even if we did not have the September 17 letter (but thank goodness that we do), it is merely the current fashion to believe that "Dear Boss" was written by a journalist. Current fashion does not a fact make. In much the same way as it used to be a fact that there were seven canonical victiims, time has shifted that to five. In time, it may eventually become more or less than five, but we should not confuse current musing with known fact.

Another rabbit hole, if we are to use the Sept 17th letter as any type of evidence to support anything Ripper related then we really are in the land of rainbows and unicorns...you want to chase your tail round the maypole with that one, carry on but I wont dance, leaving you to point and say "look he won't even discuss it"...I'm fine with that.

"The fact the document seems to be "in hiding".". I don't understand this comment - could you clarify, please?

Yes I can clarify. If the owner(s) of the diary were interested in putting a case to "the Jury" the diary could be independently examined, without book deals or affidavits or dodgy providence on dodgy providence. This will not happen as this item is accumulating value just through keeping it tucked away.

Seriously, everything in life is relative. Good luck with your MIke Barrett as local writer theory.

He wrote children's stories? had a word processor in his home, long before that was common? I'm not sure what the theory of relativity has to do with it, but many proponents of the diary seem to dismiss Mike Barrett as easily as the people they criticise for dismissing the diary in the exact same way.

The journal has shown over 24 years that it cannot be as easily dismissed as you attempt to do. If it were that easy, it would have been conclusively done. The fact that in 2016 we are still able to have the debate tells you that this thing cannot be so easily shaken.

This is why we are still taking about it 25 years on...because the burden of proof seems to lie with the detractors and unbelievers, it doesn't in my opinion...the onus of proof is on the proponents of this photograph album to prove it's authenticity and in 25 years they have failed to do so.

[Iconoclast]

Often, when you don't respond to a post, it is misunderstood for "Haven't got an answer to that and don't want to admit to it". In this case, I want to be clear that that I find nothing new in your second post for me to respond to.

I understand that you think the journal is a forgery and therefore - as you say - your opinion is your driving force. That leaps out in every word you write, and yet despite the volume of your reply I find little or nothing to respond to.

Just for clarity, which children's stories did Mike Barrett author? If you are referring to a few articles in Look-In magazine, I don't honestly think that qualifies him as a man of letters, whether that be Liverpool or London. And if he had a WP (in 1985 when they were less common or indeed 1992 when they were more common) what bearing does that have in terms of anything? He confessed to typing it up on a WP and lo and behold he had a WP. I think you must surely have menat something entirely different to this but I can't fathom what it could be.

[DirectorDave]

Hi Ike,

I'm fine with you finding nothing to respond to, I am not a proponent of "The last word wins" rule.

On the WP my point was simply that Word Processors in a domestic setting were uncommon, they were expensive things in 1985 and I really don't think they were "more common" in that setting even in 1992, by then they were being replaced by software on computers.

Calling him out on having a WP is just highlighting that possessing one in those years adds to the "Mike Barrett has an interest in writing" column...nothing more cloaked or sinister than that.

3 posts in 7 years on this subject I think is enough for me, and thus I give you the honour, should you wish to take it, of the last word in this particular discussion.

I wish you well with your contemplations.