Vote the Diary

[pinkmoon]

G'day Pink



If I didn't have the opinions of people who had met MrB I may be more likely to accept him having something to do with it, but as I said the evidence leads me the other way. If anyone can provide an analysis of the Ink that shows a date in the 1890's I will reconsider my position, but even then it would still only point to an old creation, and not enough IMHO to prove Maybrick, without more.



__________________

Hi gut,if the people who discoverd the diary had told the truth about its history and if the author of the diary had not claimed authorship of the ripper letters I would give it a chance.

[GUT]

G'day Pink

for modern forgery it would mean Mr Barrett would have to have a hand in creating it which in my personal opinion is impossible.

If I didn't have the opinions of people who had met MrB I may be more likely to accept him having something to do with it, but as I said the evidence leads me the other way. If anyone can provide an analysis of the Ink that shows a date in the 1890's I will reconsider my position, but even then it would still only point to an old creation, and not enough IMHO to prove Maybrick, without more.



__________________

[pinkmoon]

G'day all

I voted old forgery.

Mainly because I really believe n gong where the evidence leads me, if I like it or not, and the nk analysis says, 1920 + 12 years [ or was it 8]. I think the only reasons to support modern are the "confession" [which talking to people that know say couldn't be true] and and some feeling that ther5e is information that wasn't known in the past and that is just intellectual snobbery, we only have a minute fraction of the material that was known in 88 and say 30 years later.

A forger in 1918 could have as a 20 year old followed the murders closely and have scrapbooks chock a block of information and a head full of even more information that those of us here, almost 100 years later, may never know of.

Hi gut,snap I've gone for old forgery purely because if I go for modern forgery it would mean Mr Barrett would have to have a hand in creating it which in my personal opinion is impossible.

[GUT]

G'day all

I voted old forgery.

Mainly because I really believe n gong where the evidence leads me, if I like it or not, and the nk analysis says, 1920 + 12 years [ or was it 8]. I think the only reasons to support modern are the "confession" [which talking to people that know say couldn't be true] and and some feeling that ther5e is information that wasn't known in the past and that is just intellectual snobbery, we only have a minute fraction of the material that was known in 88 and say 30 years later.

A forger in 1918 could have as a 20 year old followed the murders closely and have scrapbooks chock a block of information and a head full of even more information that those of us here, almost 100 years later, may never know of.

[Stephen Thomas]

The old forgery theory doesn't have much support as yet .

[MayBea]

The Diary supporters are a little short-handed with one suspended and others non-active.

[Roy Corduroy]

You may now cast your vote please, - Roy