Vote the Diary

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Spider]

Heaven forbid if it's on par with the drudgery of Withnail.

Regards

[caz]

Does this imply from the title, that Mr Robinson is putting Michael Maybrick in Jack the Ripper's shoes? ;-)

Put him in one of Withnail's shoes and one of Jack's and I'll definitely buy it.

I was not codding dear old Boss. We want the finest wines available to humanity. We want them here, and we want them now!

From hell - Sor, I feel like a pig shat in my head.

I must have some booze. I demand to have some booze! It gives me real fits.

We've gone on holiday by mistake. Keep this letter back.

Honestly, I've only had a few ales. Catch me when you can.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think many people in the wake of Florie's trial and conviction felt that Michael Maybrick had much to answer for.

Imagine the humiliation he'd have suffered, as the brother of the brutish "Sir Jim", if someone had come across the diary while he was still alive and had had it published - even as a likely spoof? If it was written as a sly dig at someone's expense, it could have been at the lofty Michael's.

Thinking about the content, I can't see what on earth Michael would have had to gain from creating it himself and planting it in Battlecrease.

Love,

Caz
X

[Spider]

Hello Spider,

From interviews I've read over the years
and judging from the title which as you
know is based on one of Michael Maybrick's
songs (although the lyrics were written by
Fred Weatherly), yes, Michael Maybrick is
his suspect.

Liv

That should make for an interesting book, as the only link to Michael is via the much debated Diary. The take must be that Michael created the diary and was going to frame his brother if the wheels came off?

Regards

[Livia]

Hello Spider,

From interviews I've read over the years
and judging from the title which as you
know is based on one of Michael Maybrick's
songs (although the lyrics were written by
Fred Weatherly), yes, Michael Maybrick is
his suspect.

Liv

[GUT]

I inherited a lot of old family documents. The greater part of them are actually written in pencil - not just black-lead, either, but some in heavy purple pencil. Only a few documents are written in ink. My mother (born 1911, no longer with us) did most of her writing in pencil - as far as I can recall she never owned a fountain-pen, and I don't recall an ink-well in our house. She hated ball-points, and I tend to agree. My dad used a fountain-pen on the rare occasions he wrote anything. To this day I use a pencil for making notes.

Not that it matters.

Graham

Fountain pens weren't cheap either, so not everyone had them.

[Graham]

I guess Paul meant a Diary written over decades.

Except for a couple of entries in blue, I basically used the same black pen for almost a year in my diary.

Nibs obviously have an unlimited supply of ink from wells so aren't like today's disposable pens.

I inherited a lot of old family documents. The greater part of them are actually written in pencil - not just black-lead, either, but some in heavy purple pencil. Only a few documents are written in ink. My mother (born 1911, no longer with us) did most of her writing in pencil - as far as I can recall she never owned a fountain-pen, and I don't recall an ink-well in our house. She hated ball-points, and I tend to agree. My dad used a fountain-pen on the rare occasions he wrote anything. To this day I use a pencil for making notes.

Not that it matters.

Graham